Tuesday, May 31, 2011

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/31/study-found-toxin-from-gm-crops-is-showing-up-in-human-blood.aspxStudy Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human BloodPosted By Dr. Mercola | May 31 2011 | 4,298 viewsGenetically Modified CropsA new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.India Today reports:“Scientists ... have detected the insecticidal protein ... circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”Sources:* India Today May 11, 2011* * Reproductive Toxicology February 18, 2011*

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Follow Dr. Mercola on TwitterFollow Dr. Mercola on Facebook

Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:· 93 percent of maternal blood samples· 80 percent of fetal blood samples· 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samplesWriting in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:"This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities."This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.Bt Toxin is a Built-In PesticideUpwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they're killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin -- produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs -- and even if it survived, it won't cause reactions in humans or mammals ...But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:"Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn't wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others."GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in WaterwaysGiven that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water -- a phenomenon that's incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your BodyIn case it's not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it's certified organic by the USDA.There's very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which contains the BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you're pregnant).This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:Rheumatoid arthritis

Inflammatory bowel disease

OsteoporosisAtherosclerosis

Various types of cancer

AllergiesLou Gehrig's disease

I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components. So you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.How to Say "No" to GMOsIf you don't already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.If you're feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.

The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern The Geopolitics of the Palestinians

By George Friedman

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said May 30 that Israel could not prevent the United Nations from recognizing a Palestinian state, in the sense of adopting a resolution on the subject. Two weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama, in a speech, called on Israel to return to some variation of its pre-1967 borders. The practical significance of these and other diplomatic evolutions in relation to Israel is questionable. Historically, U.N. declarations have had variable meanings, depending on the willingness of great powers to enforce them. Obama’s speech on Israel, and his subsequent statements, created enough ambiguity to make exactly what he was saying unclear. Nevertheless, it is clear that the diplomatic atmosphere on Israel is shifting.

There are many questions concerning this shift, ranging from the competing moral and historical claims of the Israelis and Palestinians to the internal politics of each side to whether the Palestinians would be satisfied with a return to the pre-1967 borders. All of these must be addressed, but this analysis is confined to a single issue: whether a return to the 1967 borders would increase the danger to Israel’s national security. Later analyses will focus on Palestinian national security issues and those of others.

Early Borders

It is important to begin by understanding that the pre-1967 borders are actually the borders established by the armistice agreements of 1949. The 1948 U.N. resolution creating the state of Israel created a much smaller Israel. The Arab rejection of what was called “partition” resulted in a war that created the borders that placed the West Bank (named after the west bank of the Jordan River) in Jordanian hands, along with substantial parts of Jerusalem, and placed Gaza in the hands of the Egyptians.

Israel's Borders and National Security(click here to enlarge image)

The 1949 borders substantially improved Israel’s position by widening the corridors between the areas granted to Israel under the partition, giving it control of part of Jerusalem and, perhaps most important, control over the Negev. The latter provided Israel with room for maneuver in the event of an Egyptian attack — and Egypt was always Israel’s main adversary. At the same time, the 1949 borders did not eliminate a major strategic threat. The Israel-Jordan border placed Jordanian forces on three sides of Israeli Jerusalem, and threatened the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. Much of the Israeli heartland, the Tel Aviv-Haifa-Jerusalem triangle, was within Jordanian artillery range, and a Jordanian attack toward the Mediterranean would have to be stopped cold at the border, since there was no room to retreat, regroup and counterattack.

For Israel, the main danger did not come from Jordan attacking by itself. Jordanian forces were limited, and tensions with Egypt and Syria created a de facto alliance between Israel and Jordan. In addition, the Jordanian Hashemite regime lived in deep tension with the Palestinians, since the former were British transplants from the Arabian Peninsula, and the Palestinians saw them as well as the Israelis as interlopers. Thus the danger on the map was mitigated both by politics and by the limited force the Jordanians could bring to bear.

Nevertheless, politics shift, and the 1949 borders posed a strategic problem for Israel. If Egypt, Jordan and Syria were to launch a simultaneous attack (possibly joined by other forces along the Jordan River line) all along Israel’s frontiers, the ability of Israel to defeat the attackers was questionable. The attacks would have to be coordinated — as the 1948 attacks were not — but simultaneous pressure along all frontiers would leave the Israelis with insufficient forces to hold and therefore no framework for a counterattack. From 1948 to 1967, this was Israel’s existential challenge, mitigated by the disharmony among the Arabs and the fact that any attack would be detected in the deployment phase.

Israel’s strategy in this situation had to be the pre-emptive strike. Unable to absorb a coordinated blow, the Israelis had to strike first to disorganize their enemies and to engage them sequentially and in detail. The 1967 war represented Israeli strategy in its first generation. First, it could not allow the enemy to commence hostilities. Whatever the political cost of being labeled the aggressor, Israel had to strike first. Second, it could not be assumed that the political intentions of each neighbor at any one time would determine their behavior. In the event Israel was collapsing, for example, Jordan’s calculations of its own interests would shift, and it would move from being a covert ally to Israel to a nation both repositioning itself in the Arab world and taking advantage of geographical opportunities. Third, the center of gravity of the Arab threat was always Egypt, the neighbor able to field the largest army. Any pre-emptive war would have to begin with Egypt and then move to other neighbors. Fourth, in order to control the sequence and outcome of the war, Israel would have to maintain superior organization and technology at all levels. Finally, and most important, the Israelis would have to move for rapid war termination. They could not afford a war of attrition against forces of superior size. An extended war could drain Israeli combat capability at an astonishing rate. Therefore the pre-emptive strike had to be decisive.

The 1949 borders actually gave Israel a strategic advantage. The Arabs were fighting on external lines. This means their forces could not easily shift between Egypt and Syria, for example, making it difficult to exploit emergent weaknesses along the fronts. The Israelis, on the other hand, fought from interior lines, and in relatively compact terrain. They could carry out a centrifugal offense, beginning with Egypt, shifting to Jordan and finishing with Syria, moving forces from one front to another in a matter of days. Put differently, the Arabs were inherently uncoordinated, unable to support each other. The pre-1967 borders allowed the Israelis to be superbly coordinated, choosing the timing and intensity of combat to suit their capabilities. Israel lacked strategic depth, but it made up for it with compact space and interior lines. If it could choose the time, place and tempo of engagements, it could defeat numerically superior forces. The Arabs could not do this.

Israel needed two things in order to exploit this advantage. The first was outstanding intelligence to detect signs of coordination and the massing of forces. Detecting the former sign was a matter of political intelligence, the latter a matter of tactical military intelligence. But the political intelligence would have to manifest itself in military deployments, and given the geography of the 1949 borders, massing forces secretly was impossible. If enemy forces could mass undetected it would be a disaster for Israel. Thus the center of gravity of Israeli war-making was its intelligence capabilities.

The second essential requirement was an alliance with a great power. Israel’s strategy was based on superior technology and organization — airpower, armor and so on. The true weakness of Israel’s strategic power since the country’s creation had been that its national security requirements outstripped its industrial and financial base. It could not domestically develop and produce all of the weapons it needed to fight a war. Israel depended first on the Soviets, then until 1967 on France. It was not until after the 1967 war that the United States provided any significant aid to Israel. However, under the strategy of the pre-1967 borders, continual access to weapons — and in a crisis, rapid access to more weapons — was essential, so Israel had to have a powerful ally. Not having one, coupled with an intelligence failure, would be disastrous.

After 1967

The 1967 war allowed Israel to occupy the Sinai, all of Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. It placed Egyptian forces on the west bank of the Suez, far from Israel, and pushed the Jordanians out of artillery range of the Israeli heartland. It pushed Syria out of artillery range as well. This created the strategic depth Israel required, yet it set the stage for the most serious military crisis in Israeli history, beginning with a failure in its central capability — intelligence.

Israel's Borders and National Security(click here to enlarge image)

The intelligence failure occurred in 1973, when Syria and Egypt managed to partially coordinate an assault on Israel without Israeli intelligence being able to interpret the intelligence it was receiving. Israel was saved above all by rapid rearmament by the United States, particularly in such staples of war as artillery shells. It was also aided by greater strategic depth. The Egyptian attack was stopped far from Israel proper in the western Sinai. The Syrians fought in the Golan Heights rather than in Galilee.

Here is the heart of the pre-1967 border issue. Strategic depth meant that the Syrians and Egyptians spent their main offensive force outside of Israel proper. This bought Israel space and time. It allowed Israel to move back to its main sequential strategy. After halting the two attacks, the Israelis proceeded to defeat the Syrians in the Golan then the Egyptians in the Sinai. However, the ability to mount the two attacks — and particularly the Sinai attack — required massive American resupply of everything from aircraft to munitions. It is not clear that without this resupply the Israelis could have mounted the offensive in the Sinai, or avoided an extended war of attrition on unfavorable terms. Of course, the intelligence failure opened the door to Israel’s other vulnerability — its dependency on foreign powers for resupply. Indeed, perhaps Israel’s greatest miscalculation was the amount of artillery shells it would need to fight the war; the amount required vastly outstripped expectations. Such a seemingly minor thing created a massive dependency on the United States, allowing the United States to shape the conclusion of the war to its own ends so that Israel’s military victory ultimately evolved into a political retreat in the Sinai.

It is impossible to argue that Israel, fighting on its 1949 borders, was less successful than when it fought on its post-1967 borders. What happened was that in expanding the scope of the battlefield, opportunities for intelligence failures multiplied, the rate of consumption of supplies increased and dependence grew on foreign powers with different political interests. The war Israel fought from the 1949 borders was more efficiently waged than the one it fought from the post-1967 borders. The 1973 war allowed for a larger battlefield and greater room for error (errors always occur on the battlefield), but because of intelligence surprises and supply miscalculations it also linked Israel’s national survival to the willingness of a foreign government to quickly resupply its military.

The example of 1973 casts some doubt around the argument that the 1948 borders were excessively vulnerable. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but it is not a clear-cut position. However, we need to consider Israel’s borders not only in terms of conventional war but also in terms of unconventional war — both uprisings and the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons.

There are those who argue that there will be no more peer-to-peer conflicts. We doubt that intensely. However, there is certainly a great deal of asymmetric warfare in the world, and for Israel it comes in the form of intifadas, rocket attacks and guerrilla combat against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The post-1967 borders do not do much about these forms of warfare. Indeed, it can be argued that some of this conflict happens because of the post-1967 borders.

A shift to the 1949 borders would not increase the risk of an intifada but would make it moot. It would not eliminate conflict with Hezbollah. A shift to the 1949 line would eliminate some threats but not others. From the standpoint of asymmetric warfare, a shift in borders could increase the threat from Palestinian rockets to the Israeli heartland. If a Palestinian state were created, there would be the very real possibility of Palestinian rocket fire unless there was a significant shift in Hamas’ view of Israel or Fatah increased its power in the West Bank and was in a position to defeat Hamas and other rejectionist movements. This would be the heart of the Palestinian threat if there were a return to the borders established after the initial war.

The shape of Israel’s borders doesn’t really have an effect on the threat posed by CBRN weapons. While some chemical artillery rockets could be fired from closer borders, the geography leaves Israel inherently vulnerable to this threat, regardless of where the precise boundary is drawn, and they can already be fired from Lebanon or Gaza. The main threat discussed, a CBRN warhead fitted to an Iranian medium-range ballistic missile launched from a thousand miles away, has little to do with precisely where a line in the Levant is drawn.

When we look at conventional warfare, I would argue that the main issue Israel has is not its borders but its dependence on outside powers for its national security. Any country that creates a national security policy based on the willingness of another country to come to its assistance has a fundamental flaw that will, at some point, be mortal. The precise borders should be those that a) can be defended and b) do not create barriers to aid when that aid is most needed. In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon withheld resupply for some days, pressing Israel to the edge. U.S. interests were not those of Israel. This is the mortal danger to Israel — a national security requirement that outstrips its ability to underwrite it.

Israel’s borders will not protect it against Iranian missiles, and rockets from Gaza are painful but do not threaten Israel’s existence. In case the artillery rocket threat expands beyond this point, Israel must retain the ability to reoccupy and re-engage, but given the threat of asymmetric war, perpetual occupation would seem to place Israel at a perpetual disadvantage. Clearly, the rocket threat from Hamas represents the best argument for strategic depth.

Israel's Borders and National Security(click here to enlarge image)

The best argument for returning to the pre-1967 borders is that Israel was more capable of fighting well on these borders. The war of independence, the 1956 war and the 1967 war all went far better than any of the wars that came after. Most important, if Israel is incapable of generating a national defense industry that can provide all the necessary munitions and equipment without having to depend on its allies, then it has no choice but to consider what its allies want. With the pre-1967 borders there is a greater chance of maintaining critical alliances. More to the point, the pre-1967 borders require a smaller industrial base because they do not require troops for occupation and they improve Israel’s ability to conduct conventional operations in a time of crisis.

There is a strong case to be made for not returning to the 1949 lines, but it is difficult to make that case from a military point of view. Strategic depth is merely one element of a rational strategy. Given that Israel’s military security depends on its relations with third parties, the shape of its borders and diplomatic reality are, as always, at the heart of Israeli military strategy.

In warfare, the greatest enemy of victory is wishful thinking. The assumption that Israel will always have an outside power prepared to rush munitions to the battlefield or help create costly defense systems like Iron Dome is simply wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe this will always be the case. Therefore, since this is the heart of Israeli strategy, the strategy rests on wishful thinking. The question of borders must be viewed in the context of synchronizing Israeli national security policy with Israeli national means.

There is an argument prevalent among Israelis and their supporters that the Arabs will never make a lasting peace with Israel. From this flows the assumption that the safest course is to continue to hold all territory. My argument assumes the worst case, which is not only that the Palestinians will not agree to a genuine peace but also that the United States cannot be counted on indefinitely. All military planning must begin with the worst case.

However, I draw a different conclusion from these facts than the Israelis do. If the worst-case scenario is the basis for planning, then Israel must reduce its risk and restructure its geography along the more favorable lines that existed between 1949 and 1967, when Israel was unambiguously victorious in its wars, rather than the borders and policies after 1967, when Israel has been less successful. The idea that the largest possible territory provides the greatest possible security is not supportable in military history. As Frederick the Great once said, he who defends everything defends nothing.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Most Americans remain blissfully unaware (or don’t care) they are eating genetically-modified (GM) organisms every day. Passivity and blind faith in the USDA, FDA and EPA have largely contributed to this attitude. Perhaps that will change now that a new study reveals an insecticide produced in GM corn actually gets absorbed into the human body.http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/05/19/gmo-study-omg-you%e2%80%99re-eating-insecticide/GMO Study: OMG, You’re Eating Insecticide…By Matt Spaeth on May 19, 2011http://foodintegritynow.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cornlab-300x225.jpgMost Americans remain blissfully unaware (or don’t care) they are eating genetically-modified (GM) organisms every day. Passivity and blind faith in the USDA, FDA and EPA have largely contributed to this attitude. Perhaps that will change now that a new study reveals an insecticide produced in GM corn actually gets absorbed into the human body. If you haven’t been paying attention to your food lately, biotechnology giants such as Monsanto thank you for that. Because behind your back, they’ve succeeded in replacing 86% of US corn with their patented insecticide-producing “frankencorn”.The industry name for this is “Bt corn” and the insecticide is actually produced inside the plant, so it is impossible to wash it off. This is accomplished by inserting genes from the bacteria Bacillus Thuringiensis into the corn.Up until now, scientists and multinational corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont have spent billions in lobbying, campaign donations and “testing” in an attempt to convince world governments that GMOs are safe. In the case of Bt corn, they stated the insecticide produced within the corn posed no danger to human health because it was broken down in the digestive system.Despite corporate assurances, many have been skeptical. Non-GMO advocates such as Jeffrey Smith from The Institute For Responsible Technology and the Organic Consumers Association have long been concerned about the potential impact this Bt toxin could have on human health.Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, proved the validity of these concerns when they detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of both pregnant and non-pregnant women. They also detected the toxin in fetal blood, suggesting that the toxin can be passed on to the fetus. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.Neither the women studied or their spouses worked in agriculture. All reported to be consuming a typical Canadian diet that is virtually identical to the American diet.“Generated data will help regulatory agencies responsible for the protection of human health to make better decisions”, said researchers Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc.Unfortunately, I don’t feel that our pro-GMO Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will pay attention to this research. I also doubt that our Deputy Commissioner of Foods Michael Taylor, who also happens to be Monsanto’s former vice-president, will pay this study much attention either. It doesn’t stop there. The revolving door is growing exponentially and the foxes have taken up residence in the hen house.Are you pissed? You should be. We’ve let corporate interests turn us into poison-fed lab rats. It doesn’t end at corn either. 93% of both soy and canola are also genetically-modified. On top of that, Monsanto has acres of laboratories containing new mutant species awaiting to slip into your pantry. You’re probably wearing some of their Bt cotton right now. It comprises 93% of US cotton and 68% of Chinese cotton.Perhaps you’ve heard of the uproar around Bt brinjal, a GM variety of eggplant, in India. When it was approved in 2009, a country-wide protest began and the Indian government applied a moratorium on its release.Meanwhile, here in the US, GMO crops are getting approved left and right and most Americans still don’t even know what “GMO” even means.Want to do something about it? We can’t rely on our regulatory agencies to do it for us and we possess more power than we think. It won’t take much to reach the tipping point of consumer rejection and get these “frankenfoods” out of our lives. Information spreads like wildfire these days with Facebook, Twitter and email. Tell your family and friends and vote with your dollar, the world’s food supply depends on it! Now that you know, it’s your responsibility to pass it on.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

BLUE GOLDThe Global Water Crisis and theCommodification of the World's Water SupplyRevised EditionSpring, 2001Author: Maude BarlowNational Chairperson, Council of CanadiansChair, IFG Committee on the Globalization of Water"The wars of the next century will be about water."Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World BankINTRODUCTIONWe'd like to believe there's an infinite supply of water on the planet. But the assumption is tragically false.Available fresh water amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of all the water on earth. The rest is seawater, or is frozen in the polar ice. Fresh water is renewable only by rainfall, at the rate of 40,000 to50,000 cubic kilometers per year. Due to intensive urbanization, deforestation, water diversion andindustrial farming, however, with the drying of the earth's surface, even this small finite source of freshwater is disappearing; if present trends persist, the water in all river basins on every continent couldsteadily be depleted.Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human populationgrowth. According to the United Nations, more than one billion people on earth already lack access tofresh drinking water. If current trends persist, by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise to 56percent above the amount that is currently available.As the water crisis intensifies, governments around the world—under pressure from transnationalcorporations—are advocating a radical solution: the privatization, commodification and mass diversion ofwater. Proponents say that such a system is the only way to distribute water to the world's thirsty.However, experience shows that selling water on the open market does not address the needs of poor,thirsty people. On the contrary, privatized water is delivered to those who can pay for it, such as wealthycities and individuals and water-intensive industries, like agriculture and high-tech. As one resident of thehigh desert in New Mexico observed after his community's water had been diverted for use by thehigh-tech industry: "Water flows uphill to money."The push to commodify water comes at a time when the social, political and economic impacts of waterscarcity are rapidly becoming a destabilizing force, with water-related conflicts springing up around theglobe. For example, Malaysia, which supplies about half of Singapore's water, threatened to cut off thatsupply in 1997 after Singapore criticized its government policies. In Africa, relations between Botswanaand Namibia have been severely strained by Namibian plans to construct a pipeline to divert water fromthe shared Okavango River to eastern Namibia.The former Mayor of Mexico City predicts a war in the Mexican Valley in the foreseeable future if asolution to his city's water crisis is not found soon. Much has been written about the potential for waterwars in the Middle East, where water resources are severely limited. The late King Hussein of Jordan oncesaid the only thing he would go to war with Israel over was water, because Israel controls Jordan's watersupply.Meanwhile, the future of one of the earth's most vital resources is being determined by those who profitfrom its overuse and abuse. A handful of transnational corporations, backed by the World Bank, areaggressively taking over the management of public water services in developing countries, dramaticallyraising the price of water to the local residents and profiting from the Third World's desperate search forsolutions to the water crisis. The corporate agenda is clear: water should be treated like any other tradablegood, with its use determined by market principles.At the same time, governments are signing away their control over domestic water supplies byparticipating in trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); itsproposed successor, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); and the World Trade Organization(WTO). These global trade institutions effectively give transnational corporations unprecedented access tothe water of signatory countries.Already, corporations have started to sue governments in order to gain access to domestic water sources.For example, Sun Belt, a California company, is suing the government of Canada under NAFTA becauseBritish Columbia (B.C.) banned water exports several years ago. The company claims that B.C.'s lawviolates several NAFTA-based investor rights and therefore is claiming $10 billion in compensation forlost profits.With the protection of these international trade agreements, companies are setting their sights on the masstransport of bulk water by diversion and by supertanker. Several companies are developing technologywhereby large quantities of fresh water would be loaded into huge sealed bags and towed across the oceanfor sale. Selling water to the highest bidder will only exacerbate the worst impacts of the world watercrisis.A number of key research and environmental organizations such as Worldwatch Institute, WorldResources Institute and the United Nations Environment Program have been sounding the alarm for wellover a decade: If water usage continues to increase at current rates, the results will be devastating for theearth and its inhabitants. Groups such as the International Rivers Network, Greenpeace, Clean WatersNetwork, Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth International, along with thousands of community groupsaround the world, are fighting the construction of new dams, reclaiming damaged rivers and wetlands,confronting industry over contamination of water systems, and protecting whales and other aquatic speciesfrom hunting and overfishing. In a number of countries, experts have come up with some exciting andcreative solutions to these problems. This work is crucial, yet such efforts need to be coordinated andunderstood in the broader context of economic globalization and its role in promoting privatization andcommodification.Who owns water? Should anyone? Should it be privatized? What rights do transnational corporations haveto buy water systems? Should it be traded as a commodity in the open market? What laws do we need toprotect water? What is the role of government? How do those in water-rich countries share with those inwater-poor countries? Who is the custodian for nature's lifeblood? How do ordinary citizens becomeinvolved in this process?The analysis and the recommendations in this report are based on the principle that water is part of theearth's heritage and must be preserved in the public domain for all time and protected by strong local,national and international law. At stake is the whole notion of "the commons," the idea that through ourpublic institutions we recognize a shared human and natural heritage to be preserved for futuregenerations. Local communities must be the watchdogs of our waterways and must establish principlesthat oversee the use of this precious resource.Instead of allowing this vital resource to become a commodity sold to the highest bidder, we believe thataccess to clean water for basic needs is a fundamental human right. Each generation must ensure that theabundance and quality of water is not diminished as a result of its activities. Great efforts must be made torestore the health of aquatic ecosystems that have already been degraded as well as to protect others fromharm.Above all, we need to radically restructure our societies and lifestyles in order to reverse the depletion ofour fresh water and to learn to live within the watershed ecosystems that were created to sustain life. Wemust abandon the specious notion that we can carelessly abuse the world's precious water sources because,somehow, technology will come to the rescue. There is no technological "fix" for a planet depleted ofwater.THE CRISISA FINITE RESOURCEIt is commonly assumed that the world's water supply is huge and infinite. This assumption is false. Infact, of all the water on Earth, only 2.5 percent is fresh water, and available fresh water represents less thanhalf of 1 percent of the world's total water stock. The rest is seawater, or inaccessible in ice caps, groundwater and soil. Crucially, this supply is finite.As Allerd Stikker of the Amsterdam-based Ecological Management Foundation explains: "The issuetoday, put simply, is that while the only renewable source of fresh water is continental rainfall (whichgenerates a more or less constant global supply of 40,000 to 50,000 cubic km per year), the worldpopulation keeps increasing by roughly 85 million per year. Therefore the availability of fresh water perhead is decreasing rapidly."Most disturbingly, we are diverting, polluting and depleting that finite source of fresh water at anastonishing rate. Today, says the United Nations, 31 countries are facing water stress and scarcity andover one billion people lack adequate access to clean drinking water. By the year 2025, as much astwo-thirds of the world's population—predicted to have expanded by an additional 2.6 billion people—willbe living in conditions of serious water shortage and one-third will be living in conditions of absolutewater scarcity.World Resources, a publication of the United Nations Environment Program, the World Bank and theWorld Resources Institute, has a dire warning: "The world's thirst for water is likely to become one of themost pressing resource issues of the 21st century...In some cases, water withdrawals are so high, relative tosupply, that surface water supplies are literally shrinking and groundwater reserves are being depletedfaster than they can be replenished by precipitation."Groundwater over-pumping and aquifer depletion are now serious problems in the world's most intensiveagricultural areas. In the U.S., the High Plains Ogallala aquifer, stretching some 800 miles (1,300 km)from the Texas panhandle to South Dakota, is being depleted eight times faster than nature can replenishit. The water table under California's San Joaquin Valley has dropped nearly ten meters in some spotswithin the last 50 years. Twenty-one percent of irrigation in the U.S. is achieved by pumping ground waterat rates that exceed the water's ability to recharge (and most water used for irrigation cannot be recycled).In the Arabian peninsula, groundwater use is nearly three times greater than recharge and, at the currentrate of extraction, Saudi Arabia is running toward total depletion in the next 50 years; Israel's extractionhas exceeded replacement by 2.5 billion meters in 25 years and 13 percent of its coastal aquifer iscontaminated by seawater and fertilizer run-off; current depletion of Africa's non-recharging aquifers isestimated at 10 billion cubic meters a year; water tables are falling everywhere throughout India; landbeneath Bangkok has actually sunk due to massive over-pumping; and Northern China now has eightregions of aquifer overdraft while the water table beneath Beijing has dropped 37 meters over the last fourdecades. In fact, so severe is the projected water crisis in Beijing, experts are now wondering whether theseat of power in China will have to be moved.In Mexico City, pumping exceeds natural recharge by 50-80 percent every year and experts are saying thecity could run out of water entirely in the next decade. In the maquiladora free trade zones all along theMexican-U.S border, water is a precious commodity, delivered weekly in many communities by truck orcart. In early 2001, the National Water Commission reported that the border area, thick with industrial andhuman waste and strapped for funds, only treats about one-third of its waste water and sewage. CiudadJuarez, growing at a rate of 50,000 people a year, is running out of water; the underground aquifer the cityrelies on has declined at about five feet a year. At this rate, there will be no usable water left in 20 years.As Stikker explains, this means that instead of living on water income, we are irreversibly diminishingwater capital. At some time in the near future, water bankruptcy will result. Sandra Postel of the GlobalWater Policy Project adds that, in addition to depleting supplies, groundwater mining causes salt water toinvade freshwater aquifers, destroying them. In other cases, groundwater mining actually permanentlyreduces the earth's capacity to store water. In California, for example, overuse of the underground watersupplies in the Central Valley has resulted in a loss of over 40 percent of the combined storage capacity ofall human-made surface reservoirs in the state. In 1998, California's Department of Water Resourcesannounced that by 2020, if more supplies are not found, the state will face a shortfall of water nearly asgreat as the amount that all of its towns and cities together are consuming today.Further, the global expansion in mining and manufacturing is increasing the threat of pollution to theseunderground water supplies. (In most Asian countries, for example, these aquifers provide more than 50percent of domestic water supplies.) World Resources reports that as developing countries undergo rapidindustrialization, heavy metals, acids and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are contaminating aquifers.At the same time, over-exploitation of the planet's major river systems is threatening another finite sourceof water. "The Nile in Egypt, the Ganges in South Asia, the Yellow River in China, and the ColoradoRiver in America are among the major rivers that are so dammed, diverted, or overtapped that little or nofresh water reaches its final destination for significant stretches of time," writes Sandra Postel. In fact, theColorado is so over-subscribed on its journey through seven U.S. states that there is virtually nothing leftto go out to sea. The flows of the Rio Grande and upper Colorado rivers are in danger of being reduced byas much as 75 percent and 40 percent respectively over the next century.Perhaps the most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer MichalKravèík and his team of scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People andWater. Kravèík, who has a distinguished career with the Slovak Academy of Sciences, has studied theeffect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation, dam construction, and infrastructure and pavingon water systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an alarming finding.Destroying water's natural habitat not only creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it alsodramatically diminishes the amount of available fresh water on the planet.Kravèík describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first evaporate from a plant, earthsurface, swamp, river, lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of waterfalls back onto a forest, lake, blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with nature to return to thehydrologic cycle. "Right of domicile of a drop is one of the basic rights, a more serious right than humanrights," says Kravèík.However, if the earth's surface is paved over, denuded of forests and meadows, and drained of naturalsprings and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins and continental watersheds, where it isneeded by people and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling onto a hugeroof, or umbrella; everything underneath stays dry and the water runs off to the perimeter. The consequentreduction in continental water basins results in reduced water evaporation from the earth's surface, andbecomes a net loss, while the seas begin to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent ofroofing, paving, car parks and highways constructed, water supplies decrease in volume by more than 100billion meters per year.Kravèík issues a dire warning about the growing number of what he calls the earth's "hot stains"—placesalready drained of water. The "drying out" of the earth will cause massive global warming, with theattendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased protection from the atmosphere, increased solarradiation, decreased biodiversity, melting of the polar icecaps, submersion of vast territories, massivecontinental desertification and, eventually, "global collapse."SCARCE WATER, SCARCE FOODAs well as creating major environmental problems, overtapping of ground water and rivers is exacerbatinganother potential crisis—world food security.Irrigation for crop production claims 65 percent of all water used by humans, compared to 25 percent forindustry and 10 percent for households and municipalities. The annual rise in population means that morewater is needed every year for grain production (for humans and animals), a highly water-intensiveactivity. But, every year the world's burgeoning cities and industries are demanding more and more of thewater earmarked for agriculture. California, for example, now projects a serious decline in irrigated landsjust as its population is exploding.Eventually, some dry areas will not be able to serve both the needs of farming and those of the ballooningcities. If these regions are to meet everyday water requirements, they might have to permanently import allor most of their food. This raises the prospect that lack of water will make some countries chronicallydependent on others, or on the international community at large.Throughout rural Latin America and Asia, massive industrialization is throwing off the balance betweenhumans and nature. Export-oriented agribusiness is claiming more and more of the water once used bysmall farmers for food self-sufficiency. Another major drain on local water supplies are the more than 800Third World free trade zones, such as those in Latin America, where assembly lines produce goods for theglobal consumer elite. In the maquiladora zones of Mexico, for example, clean water is so scarce thatbabies and children drink Coca-Cola and Pepsi instead. During a drought crisis in northern Mexico in1995, the government cut water supplies to local farmers while ensuring emergency supplies to the mostlyforeign controlled industries of the region.The story is perhaps most stark in China. The Worldwatch Institute warns that an unexpectedly abruptdecline in the supply of water for China's farmers could threaten world food security. China faces severegrain shortages in the near future because of water depletion due to the current shift of limited waterresources from agriculture to industry and cities. The resulting demand for grain in China could exceed theworld's available exportable supplies. While China might be able to survive this for a time because of itsbooming economy and huge trade surpluses, the resulting higher grain prices will create social andpolitical upheaval in most major Third World cities and shake global food security.The western half of China is made up mostly of deserts and mountains; the vast bulk of the country's 1.2billion citizens live on several great rivers whose systems cannot sustain the demands currently placedupon them. For instance, in 1972, the Yellow River failed to reach the sea for the first time in history. Thatyear it failed on 15 days; every year since, it has run dry for more days. In 1997, it failed to reach the seafor 226 days. The story is the same with all of China's rivers and with its depleting water tables beneath theNorth China Plain. As big industrial wells probe the ground ever deeper to tap the remaining water,millions of Chinese farmers have found their wells pumped dry. Four hundred of China's 600 northerncities are already facing severe water shortages, as is over half of China's population.These shortages come at a time when China will see a population increase in the next 30 years greater thanthe entire population of the United States, when conservative estimates predict that annual industrial wateruse in China could grow from 52 billion tons to 269 billion tons in the same period, and when risingincomes are allowing millions of Chinese to install indoor plumbing with showers and flush toilets. TheWorldwatch Institute predicts China will be the first country in the world that will have to literallyrestructure its economy to respond to water scarcity.ENDANGERING SPECIESAround the world, the answer to the increase in water demand is to build more dams and divert morerivers. Water has long been manipulated. Even the earliest civilizations, from the Roman to the Mayan,built aqueducts and irrigation schemes. But we are now tampering with water systems on a scale that istotally unsustainable.The number of large dams worldwide has climbed from just over 5,000 in 1950 to 38,000 today and thenumber of waterways altered for navigation has grown from fewer than 9,000 in 1900 to almost 500,000.In the northern hemisphere, we have harnessed and tamed three-quarters of the flow from the world'smajor rivers to power our cities. While advances in modern engineering have allowed governments tosupply farms and cities with water, these practices have done great damage to the natural world.The world's waterways are also struggling with the full range of modern industrial toxic pollutionproblems. Ninety percent of the developing world's waste water is still discharged untreated into localrivers and streams.In the U.S., only 2 percent of the country's rivers and streams remain free-flowing and undeveloped. Thecontinental U.S. has lost more than half of its wetlands and California has lost 95 percent. Populations ofmigratory birds and waterfowl have dropped from 60 million in 1950 to just 3 million today. Watershedsthat are the most biologically diverse are the most degraded, putting species and wilderness at great risk."The U.S. is the epicenter of freshwater biodiversity in the world," says Larry Masters of the NatureConservancy. However, thirty-seven percent of its freshwater fish are at risk of extinction, 51 percent ofcrayfish and 40 percent of amphibians are imperilled, and 67 percent of freshwater mussels are extinct orvulnerable to extinction.One billion pounds of weed and bug killers are used throughout the United States every year, reportsNational Geographic, most of which runs off into the country's water systems. The Natural ResourcesDefense Council says that 53 million Americans drink tap water contaminated with lead, fecal bacteria orother harmful pollutants. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. rivers and streams are too dangerous for fishing,swimming or drinking. "We have crashing ecosystems in every river basin in the West," says Steve Glazerof the Sierra Club's Colorado River Task Force.In Canada, Jamie Linton has documented a disturbing story of water system abuse for the CanadianWildlife Federation. Wetland loss includes 65 percent of Atlantic coastal marshes, 70 percent of SouthernOntario wetlands, 71 percent of prairie wetlands, and 80 percent of the Fraser River Delta in Canada'sprovince of British Columbia. Acid rain has caused a 40 percent decline in fish species in some Canadianlakes. Most major river systems have been dammed, and more stream flows are diverted out of their basinsof origin than in any other country in the world by a considerable margin. Over a century of mining,forestry and large-scale industry has affected virtually every water body in Canada, and toxic chemicalsare found even in the most remote parts of the Far North.In the Great Lakes of North America, the world's largest freshwater system, the result has been a"catastrophic loss of biological diversity," according to Linton. Janet Abramovitz of the WorldwatchInstitute adds that the Great Lakes have lost two-thirds of their once extensive wetlands and that less than3 percent of the lakes' shorelines are suitable for swimming, drinking or supporting any aquatic life.The Nature Conservancy has identified 100 species and 31 ecological communities at risk within the GreatLakes system and notes that half don't exist anywhere else. Two hundred years ago, each of the five GreatLakes had its own thriving aquatic community. In 1900, 82 percent of the commercial catch was native.By 1966, native species were only two-tenths of 1 percent of the catch; the remaining 99.8 percent wereexotic species, most of them devastating to the local species.The story is the same all over the world. All but one of England's 33 major rivers are suffering; some arenow less than a third of their average depth. The Thames is threatening to run dry and already larger shipsare having to restrict their movements to high tides. Development has cut off the Rhine River in Europefrom 90 percent of its original flood plains, and the native salmon run has nearly disappeared. Over the last25 years, the Danube's phosphate and nitrate concentrations have increased six-fold and four-fold,respectively, causing great harm to the region's tourism and fisheries. According to the UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), 80 percent of China's major rivers are so degraded they no longersupport fish. The building of Egypt's Aswan Dam in 1970 caused the number of commercially harvestedfish to drop by almost two-thirds.The World Resources Institute reports that, after the Pak Mun Dam was built in Thailand, all 150 fishspecies that had inhabited the Mun River virtually disappeared. Introduction of non-native species toVictoria Lake in Africa has all but destroyed the native species population, already imperilled by thedumping of millions of liters of untreated sewage and industrial waste from the cities of surroundingKenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Three-fourths of Poland's rivers are so contaminated by chemicals, sewageand agricultural run-off that their water is unfit even for industrial use. Nearly half of the water and sewagetreatment systems in Moscow are ineffective or malfunctioning and, according to the Russian SecurityCouncil, 75 percent of the Republic's lake and river water is unsafe to drink.The Aral Sea basin shared by Afghanistan, Iran and five countries of the former Soviet Union was oncethe world's fourth largest lake. Excessive river diversions have caused it to lose half its area andthree-fourths of its volume, while its surrounding wetlands have shrunk by 85 percent. Calling it one of theplanet's greatest environmental tragedies, Postel reports that almost all fish and waterfowl species havebeen decimated and the fisheries have collapsed entirely. Each year, winds pick up 40-150 million tons ofa toxic salt mixture from the dry sea bed and dump it on the surrounding farmlands. Millions of"ecological refugees" have fled the area.There is simply no way to overstate the water crisis of the planet today. No piecemeal solution is going toprevent the collapse of whole societies and ecosystems. A radical rethinking of our values, priorities andpolitical systems is urgent and still possible. Yet, as we will explore in the next section, there are forces atwork in the world today that, unless challenged, would move the world almost inexorably into awater-scarce future.THE IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATIONEVERYTHING FOR SALEThe dominant development model of our time is economic globalization, a system fuelled by the beliefthat a single global economy with universal rules set by corporations and financial markets is inevitable.Economic freedom, not democracy or ecological stewardship, is the defining metaphor of the post-ColdWar period for those in power. As a result, the world is going through a revolutionary transformation asgreat as any in history. The most direct result of economic globalization to date is a massive transfer ofeconomic and political power away from national governments into the hands of the bureaucracies theyhelped to create. At the heart of this transformation is an all-out assault on virtually every sphere of life.Everything is for sale, even those areas of life once considered sacred, such as health and education,culture and heritage, genetic codes and seeds, and natural resources such as air and water. Increasingly,these services and resources are controlled by a handful of transnational corporations who shape nationaland international law to suit their interests. The Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies reports thatthe top two hundred corporations are now so big that their total sales surpass the combined economies of182 countries and they have almost twice the economic clout of the poorest four-fifths of humanity. Of the100 largest economies in the world, 53 are now transnational corporations.A new global royalty now centrally plans the market, destroying lives and nature in its wake. Says writerand former senior advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) David Korten, "Theworld is now ruled by a global financial casino staffed by faceless bankers and hedge-fund speculatorswho operate with a herd mentality in the shadowy world of global finance. Each day, they move more thantwo trillion dollars around the world in search of quick profits and safe havens, sending exchange rates andstock markets into wild gyrations wholly unrelated to any underlying economic reality. With abandon theymake and break national economies, buy and sell corporations and hold politicians hostage to theirinterests."UNEQUAL ACCESSA striking feature of economic globalization is the widening gap between rich and poor; an entrenchedunderclass is being created between regions and within every society in the world. The 2000 UnitedNations Human Development Report says that the disparity in the level of income between the top 20percent and the bottom 20 percent of the world's population is 150:1 and has doubled in the last 30 years.The world's 225 richest individuals have a combined wealth equal to the annual income of half ofhumanity. The three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domesticproduct of 48 countries.The richest fifth of the world's people consumes 86 percent of all goods and services, while the poorestfifth consumes just over 1 percent. Americans and Europeans spend substantially more every year on petfood, reports the United Nations, than the total money needed to provide basic health and nutrition foreveryone in the world. Americans spend more money on cosmetics every year than the total amountneeded to provide basic universal education.It is no surprise, then, that the deep inequality sustained by economic globalization, whether intentional ornot, is dramatically affecting the poor's access to water, the most basic of life's rights. The United NationsEconomic and Social Commission on Sustainable Development says that fully three-quarters of thepopulation living under conditions of water stress—amounting to 26 percent of the total worldpopulation—are located in developing countries. By 2025, the Commission projects, those low-incomecountries experiencing water stress will amount to 47 percent of the total world population.In crowded Asian, African and Latin American countries, massive increases in animal and human waste,intensified with the arrival of factory farms, are exposing more and more people to cholera and the deadlyE. coli bacteria through contaminated water supplies. Most local governments cannot even afford basicchlorine to treat the water. Where local communities used to turn to aquifers and hand-pumps to getaround the problem of polluted surface water, now chemical and human waste seeping into these sourceshas rendered the water table dangerous as well. In Third World cities, it is now common to ration water toneighbourhoods for a few hours a day or a few days a week.The United Nations reports that Europeans spend $11 billion a year on ice cream, $2 billion more than theestimated total money needed to provide clean water and safe sewers for the world's population. More thanfive million people, most of them children, die every year from illnesses caused by drinking poor-qualitywater. While billions go without clean water, North Americans use 1,300 gallons of water per personevery day.But water inequality exists within societies as well. In 1994, when Indonesia was hit with a major drought,residents' wells ran dry, but Jakarta's golf courses, which cater to wealthy tourists, continued to receive1,000 cubic meters per course per day. In 1998, in the midst of a three-year drought that dried up riversystems and further depleted aquifers, the Cyprus government cut the water supply to farmers by 50percent while guaranteeing the country's two million tourists a year all the water they needed. In SouthKorea, farmers south of Seoul recently armed themselves with hoes and blocked municipal water trucksfrom pumping water for city dwellers in fear it would leave their crops wanting.Anne Platt of Worldwatch Institute reports that a family in the top fifth income groups in Peru, theDominican Republic, or Ghana is respectively, three, six, or twelve times more likely to have waterconnected by pipe to the home than a family in the bottom fifth in those countries. Because they lackaccess to publicly subsidized utilities, says Platt, the poor often end up paying more for their water than dothe rich because they must obtain it from illegal sources or private vendors.In Lima, Peru, for instance, poor people may pay a private vendor as much as $3 for a cubic meter ofwater, which they must then collect by bucket and which is often contaminated. The more affluent, on theother hand, pay 30 cents per cubic meter for treated water provided through the taps in their houses.Hillside slum dwellers in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, pay substantially more for water suppliedby private tankers than they would even if they paid for the government to install a water pipe. In Dhaka,Bangladesh, squatters pay water rates that are twelve times higher than what the local utility charges. InLusaka, Zambia, low-income families pay, on average, half their household income on water.Indigenous people have been impacted in a particularly brutal fashion by economic globalization and thetheft of their water. It is the immediate relationship that indigenous people have to water that makes themespecially vulnerable to any large-scale project that alters aquatic ecosystems. The massive hydroelectricprojects of northern Quebec were devastating to the local Cree First Nations as well as to the caribou andfish upon which they depend.Environmental writer Josh Karliner explains: "Indeed the process of globalization is steamrolling socialand financial support for the basic rights of the poor, increasingly shunting the disenfranchised off to theside, where they must fend for themselves in the brutally competitive 'market.' Growing numbers of peopleare becoming victims of globalization, as the forces of corporate expansion move into farmlands, deserts,oceans and river systems they previously ignored. Already poor but largely self-sufficient, communitiesacross the earth are being cast into deeper social and ecological poverty, as well as cultural dislocation, astheir resources are appropriated for the seemingly insatiable demands of the world's ever growingconsumer societies."Once recognized as a basic human right, water is now denied to huge numbers of the human family. Wiseconservation of water cannot take place until the reality of inequality is confronted—and the reality ofinequality cannot be confronted until the tenets of economic globalization are rejected.PROHIBITING PRESERVATIONGlobalization creates economic and political structures that make an ecologically sound economy entirelyimpossible. Economic globalization refers to the integration of national economies into a single unifiedmarket. Transnational corporations pressure national governments to privatize, deregulate, eliminate tradeand investment "barriers," boost exports, and generally relinquish state controls over the economy in orderto create one global economy.Such economic integration unleashes new levels of industrial production, intensifying natural resourceexploitation and exacerbating all existing environmental problems. Heightened competition forcesgovernments to roll back environmental protections in order to increase the competitiveness of theirdomestic producers and attract foreign investment. Economic activities that are ecologically sustainableare punished by deregulated market forces, making responsible management a liability that decreasescompetitiveness."Globalization creates political and economic structures whose patterns of production and consumption areboth ecologically and socially destructive," says Victor Menotti, director of the International Forum onGlobalization's Committee on the Ecological Consequences of Globalization. "All activity orients aroundexports, which, to be globally competitive, require centralized control over vast natural resources, theability to access large amounts of finance capital, and the need to operate complex mega-technologies.Fewer workers are needed, so great numbers of people are left watching as local resources they oncetended are now shipped away to others."The result is a regime that contradicts the very principles of ecologically sustainable economics:removing control over the land from people who live on it, discouraging strong regulatory protections,penalizing responsible management, and making impossible the task of getting the price right."As nature is increasingly commodified, governments all over the world are dismantling environmentallegislation or allowing industry to police itself. Countries are lowering corporate taxes and environmentalregulations in order to remain competitive, the primary mandate of the new economy. As a result,governments are left with reduced fiscal capacity to reclaim polluted waterways and build infrastructure toprotect water; at the same time they are also left with reduced regulatory capacity to prevent furtherpollution.Globalization's imperative of unlimited growth makes it impossible for participating countries to makepreservation a priority. Developing countries have restructured their economic systems to pay their debtand export their way to prosperity, destroying both natural ecosystems and environmental regulations inthe bargain. The massive abuse and pollution of the internal waterways of most developing countries hasbeen one price of belonging to the global economy. The depletion of underground aquifers and rivers tosupply the water demand of transnational industry is another.Intrusive technologies, including the massive transportation systems needed to carry out global trade,damage water systems as well. Roads carved out of wilderness destroy river and lake habitats as well asforests; increased global shipping multiplies the amount of waste dumped directly into oceans and lakes;and dredging for port and waterway construction destroys coastal habitat.China has started work on a gargantuan $1 billion project to divert water from the Yangtze River toBeijing. Ten thousand workers have almost finished drilling a 420-kilometer series of tunnels to drainwater from the middle stretch of the Yangtze, where it will either be sent through a high-mountain range,or through a new 1,230-kilometer channel to water-starved cities like Taiyuan on its way to the capital—aprospect the Worldwatch Institute compares to turning the Mississippi River to service Washington, D.C.The governments of several South American countries have put a hold for now on the creation of amammoth new water system that would channel 3,400 kilometers of the Paraguay and Paraná rivers forindustrial use and open up the interior of the continent to global trade. But environmentalists aren'tcelebrating yet; they know there are huge corporate interests at stake and they will not easily give up onthis project."Given current corporate practices," says businessman and environmentalist Paul Hawken, "not onewildlife reserve, wilderness, or indigenous culture will survive the global economy. We know that everynatural system on the planet is disintegrating. The land, water, air, and sea have been functionallytransformed from life-supporting systems into repositories for waste. There is no polite way to say thatbusiness is destroying the world."Not everyone is so gloomy about the world water crisis. After all, what some see as an ecologicalnightmare of unprecedented proportions, a growing number of private investors are seeing as a goldenmarket opportunity.THE WATER PRIVATEERSWATER FOR SALEJust at the time governments are backing away from their regulatory responsibilities, giant transnationalwater, food, energy and shipping corporations are lining up to take advantage of the world's watershortage, acquiring control of water through the ownership of dams and waterways; the development ofnew technologies such as water desalination and purification; control over the burgeoning bottled waterindustry; the privatization of municipal and regional water services, including sewage and water delivery;the construction of water infrastructure; and water exportation."Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors," says Johan Bastin of the European Bank forReconstruction and Development. Tragically, water is also the last frontier of nature and the commons.The Globe and Mail of Canada states that privatizing water looms as the national mega-industry of thenext decade, with potential investment in the tens of billions of dollars. "Water is fast becoming aglobalized corporate industry." In May 2000, Fortune magazine stated that, in a world fleeing the vagariesof tech stocks, water is the best investment sector for the century. The World Bank places the value of thecurrent water market at close to $1 trillion; however, with only 5 percent of the world's populationcurrently getting its water from corporations, the profit potential is unlimited.The world of privatized water is overwhelmingly dominated by two French transnationals. Suez Lyonnaisedes Eaux (which built the Suez Canal and had 1999 profits of $1.5 billion on sales of $32 billion) andVivendi SA are referred to as the General Motors and Ford Motor Company of the water world. Both areranked among the 100 largest corporations in the world by the Global Fortune 500. Between them theyown, or have controlling interests in, water companies in over 120 countries on five continents, anddistribute water to almost 100 million people in the world.Suez’s CEO, Gerard Mestrallet, says that he wants to take a page from his country's past and develop inhis company the philosophy of "conquest" as Suez moves into new markets around the world. Suez ismore than just a water company. According to Fortune, "its a fresh invention...a diversified utility thatoffers cities a full range of infrastructure services, from water and sewer to trash collection, cable TV, andelectric power." The company, which projects an annual 10 percent expansion of its water business, hasjust signed its first major business contracts in China, which Mestrallet says "will be a prime market at theonset of [this]century."Both Suez and Vivendi are vying for the lucrative U.S. market, estimated to be the world's largest withannual revenues at $90 billion. New U.S. laws have opened the way to greater private sector involvementin the U.S. water supply and treatment business. Until now, this sector has been almost exclusivelycontrolled by small public-sector operators. Now these companies are poised to promote the massiveprivatization of the American water market. In 1999, Suez paid $1 billion for United Water Resources andbought two major water treatment chemical producers, Nalco and Calgon, for $4.5 billion. In the sameyear, Vivendi purchased U.S. Filter Corp. for more than $6 billion in cash, giving the new company aprojected revenue of $12 billion in annual sales. Vivendi also owns 42 percent of Air and WaterTechnologies (AWT).Another French company, SAUR, owned by the construction company, Bouygues, is also emerging in anumber of countries. The Spanish transnational Aguas de Barcelona is active in Latin America, and GreatBritain's Thames Water and Biwater are acquiring water concessions in Asia and South Africa. UnitedUtilities of Britain has joined up with the American construction and engineering giant, Bechtel, topromote privatization schemes in North and South America.Recently, a number of large pipeline and energy and electricity companies have entered the water field,promising great stock profits from what they are calling "convergence"—the prospect of a single companycarrying natural gas, water and electricity to millions of customers on a for-profit basis. General Electrichas joined forces with the World Bank and investment speculator George Soros to invest billions of dollarsin a "Global Power Fund" to privatize energy and water around the world, according to the GuardianWeekly.U.S. energy giant Enron, having acquired Wessex Water PLC of Britain, is bidding for huge contractsagainst the established players for newly privatized water services in Bulgaria, Rio de Janeiro, Berlin andPanama under its new water division, Azurix. The RWE Group, Germany's largest electricity producer, isalso emerging as a major player in water and wastewater services.A POOR TRACK RECORDThe privatization of municipal water services around the world has a terrible track record. Since waterservices were privatized in France, customer fees have increased by 150 percent. The government ofFrance also reports that the post-privatization drinking water of over five million people wascontaminated. For most of the past decade, French magistrates have been investigating allegations ofcorruption against executives of the two major French water companies who have been convicted on threeoccasions of paying bribes to obtain water contracts in France.Public Services International (PSI) reports that in England, between 1989 (the year water was privatized)and 1995, there was a 106 percent increase in the rate charged to customers, while the profits of thecompanies increased by 692 percent. The salary of the highest paid director of North West Water, forexample, increased by 708 percent. As a result of these price hikes, the number of customers who have hadtheir water disconnected has risen by 50 percent since privatization. British water corporations have beenamong the worst environmental offenders in the U.K. Between 1989 and 1997, Anglian, Severn Trent,Northumbrian, Wessex (a subsidiary of Enron) and Yorkshire were successfully prosecuted 128 times.Furthermore, privatization is almost always accompanied by lay-offs. In Great Britain, the privatecompanies fired almost 25 percent of the work force, approximately 100,000 workers, when they acquiredrights to the water system. In December, 1999, when they were ordered by the government to make pricecuts, they announced thousands of further lay-offs, even though they were enjoying wide profit margins. Incentral Europe, private water companies reduced the work force of seven cities (whose rights theyacquired) by 30 percent in just a few years. In Sydney, Australia, after the Water Board was privatized,thousands of workers lost their jobs and prices for consumers almost doubled in four years.When water is privatized, the public often loses its right to access information about water quality andstandards. A furor erupted when it was discovered in the summer of 1998 that Sydney, Australia's watersupply, now controlled by Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, contained high levels of the parasites giardia andcryptosporidium and that the public had not been informed of the problem when it was first discovered.In Ontario, Canada, the government introduced what it called a "Common Sense Revolution." Key to this"revolution" were massive cuts to the environment budget, the privatization of water testing labs, thederegulation of water protection infrastructure, and massive lay-offs of trained water testing experts. Infact, in 1999, just after a Canadian federal government study revealed that a third of Ontario's rural wellswere contaminated with E. coli, the Ontario government dropped testing for E. coli from its DrinkingWater Surveillance Program and, a year later, closed the program down entirely.The results were catastrophic. E. coli outbreaks in a number of communities sent waves of panic throughrural Ontario. In June 2000 at least seven people, one of them a baby, died from drinking the water in thelittle town of Walkerton. The town had subcontracted to a branch-plant of a private testing company fromTennessee. The lab, A&L Laboratories, discovered E. coli in the water, but failed to report thecontamination to provincial authorities, an option it has under the new "common sense" rules. A labspokesman said that the test results were "confidential intellectual property" and, as such, belonged only tothe "client"—the public officials of Walkerton who were not trained to deal with the tests.WORLD BANK IN THE LEADThe story in the developing world is far worse where international financial institutions like the WorldBank and the International Monetary Fund are aggressively promoting the privatization of water. AsPublic Services International explains, these institutions distort the choices available by their policies;these include imposing water privatization as a condition of loans and debt relief, financing watertransnationals in preference to efficient public enterprises, and selling water utilities to reduce nationaldebt.World Bank-sponsored water privatization projects promote monopolies and protect rampant corruptionand bribery and are often negotiated entirely in secret. The agreements are considered "intellectualproperty" and the public has no access to their terms. Collusion with dictators like Indonesia's Suharto aretoo frequent. The Bank often puts up the lion's share of the investment while the company takes home theprofits. Suez promised to invest $1 billion to privatize the water system of Buenos Aires, but only put up$30 million; the rest came from a World Bank agency.When water is privatized, prices are set on the open market. Says Suez Director During, "We are here tomake money. Sooner or later the company that invests recoups its investment, which means the customerhas to pay for it." The result in the Third World is that millions of poor people have been cut off. Becausethe companies are motivated by profit and not public service, they have no incentive to supply the poorwith water.In India, some households pay a staggering 25 percent of their income on water. The water system ofManila, in the Philippines, was divided by the World Bank into two zones in 1997, each run by a separateconsortium. One consortium included Bechtel, the other, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux. Only months into thenew arrangement, they sharply raised customer rates, contrary to their proclaimed intention to keep rateslow, to compensate for revenues lost due to the regional currency crisis. A year later, Biwater increasedwater rates in Subic Bay in the Philippines by 400 percent.Laboractivists in South Africa have been threatened with legal action by British transnational Biwater forcriticizing the company on the Internet. The activists charge the company with poor water managementpractices and with being involved in the British arms-for-aid scandal in the 1980s, a fact documented bythe British House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee. The South African Municipal Workers' Unionsays that Biwater is trying to stave off public criticism in the hopes of gaining the first private watercontract in South Africa's history.The union's position is firm: "Water privatization is a crucial issue for public debate. Human lives dependon the equitable distribution of water resources; the public should be given a voice in deciding whether anoverseas-based transnational corporation whose primary interest is profit maximization, should controlthose critical resources...Water is a life-giving scarce resource which therefore must remain in the hands ofthe community through public sector delivery. Water must not be provided for profit, but to meet needs."The privatization of water is wrong on many counts. It ensures that decisions regarding the allocation ofwater center almost exclusively on commercial considerations. Corporate shareholders are seekingmaximum profit, not sustainability or equal access. Privatization means that the management of waterresources is based on the principles of scarcity and profit maximization rather than long-termsustainability. Corporations are dependent on increased consumption to generate profits and are thereforemuch more likely to invest in desalination, diversion or export of water than in conservation.Further, the global trend to commodify what has been a public service reduces the involvement of citizensin water management decisions. Private water projects brokered by the World Bank, for example, haveminimal disclosure requirements. A water corporation executive at the March 2000 World Water Forum inThe Hague, said publicly that as long as water was coming out of the tap, the public had no right to anyinformation as to how it got there. The concentration of power in the hands of a single corporation and theinability of governments to reclaim management of water services allows corporations to impose theirinterests on government, reducing the democratic power of citizens.Pro-privatization advocates argue that they are seeking private-public partnerships, and give assurancesthat governments will still be able to establish regulations. However, because the provision of waterservices itself does not provide sufficient return, water corporations are increasingly seeking exclusivecontrol over water service provision through acquisitions of infrastructure and water licences while closingthe loop around public involvement. In early 1999, when the government of Ontario announced thebreak-up of the public utility, Ontario Hydro, into three new private companies, it also made public itsintention to eliminate access to information laws.In their support for large-scale project financing, the World Bank and others give preference to large multiutilityinfrastructure projects that favour the biggest corporations, leading to monopolies against whichlocal suppliers cannot compete. To add insult to injury, the World Bank is underwriting these giantcorporations with public money, and often incurs the risk, while the company reaps the profit. And oftengovernments, supposedly representing their people, have to assure a return to the shareholder. Chile had toguarantee a profit margin of 33 percent to Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux as a World Bank condition—regardless of performance.Most disturbing, the close alliance between governments, the World Bank and the water companies givesthese corporations undue influence over government policies that favour their interests, like deregulationand free trade, and preferred access to upcoming water contracts. The stated goal of the World Bank waterloan to Budapest was to "ease political resistance to private sector involvement." In the Philippines, thewater corporations can appeal government decisions and actions against them to an internationalarbitration panel appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce.So far have these World Bank–backed contracts gone, they now actually contain a form of "democracyinsurance." A recent contract between Azurix and the Argentinean government guarantees cash paymentfor "expropriation" if a future government changes its mind and wants to bring water services back underpublic control.WATER WARIn 1998, the World Bank refused to guarantee a $25 million loan to refinance water services inCochabamba, Bolivia, unless the government sold the public water system to the private sector and passedthe costs on to consumers. Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the world, finally acquiesced. Only onebid was considered, and the company was turned over to Aguas del Tunari, a subsidiary of a conglomerateled by Bechtel, the giant San Francisco engineering company, and several other construction companies.In December 1999, before making any infrastructure investments, the private water company announcedthe doubling of water prices. For most Bolivians, this meant that water would now cost more than food;for those on minimum wage or unemployed, water bills suddenly accounted for close to half their monthlybudgets, and for many, water was shut off completely. To add insult, the Bolivian government, promptedby the World Bank, granted absolute monopolies to private water concessionaires, announced its supportfor full-cost water pricing, pegged the cost of water to the American dollar and declared that none of theWorld Bank loan could be used to subsidize the poor for water services. All water, even from communitywells, required permits to access, and peasants and small farmers even had to buy permits to gatherrainwater on their property.The selling-off of public enterprises such as transportation, electrical utilities and education to foreigncorporations has been a heated economic debate in Bolivia. But this was different; polls showed that 90percent of the public wanted Bechtel turfed out. Debate turned to protest and one of the world's first "waterwars" was launched.Led by Oscar Olivera, a former machinist turned union activist, a broad-based movement of workers,peasants, farmers and others created La Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida (the Coalition inDefense of Water and Life)—La Coordinadora for short—to "de-privatize" the local water system.Hundreds of thousands of Bolivians marched to Cochabamba in a showdown with the government, and ageneral strike and transportation stoppage brought the city to a standstill. Police reacted with violence andarrests and in early April, the government declared martial law. Activists were arrested during the night;radio and television programs were shut down in mid-program. A 17-year-old boy, Victor Hugo Danza,was shot through the face and killed.Finally, on April 10, 2000, the directors of Aguas del Tunari and Bechtel abandoned Bolivia, taking withthem key personnel files, documents and computers and leaving behind a broken company with substantialdebts. Under popular pressure, the government revoked its hated water privatization legislation. Deeplychagrined at the failure of its pet project, the local government basically handed over the running of thelocal water service, SEMAPA, to the protesters and La Coordinadora, complete with debts.The people accepted the challenge, and set out to elect a new board of directors for the water company anddevelop a new mandate based on a firm set of principles. The company must be efficient, free ofcorruption, fair to the workers, guided by a commitment to social justice (providing first for those withoutwater), and it must act as a catalyst to further engage and organize the grassroots.The first act of the new company was to operationalize a huge water tank in the poorest southernneighbourhoods, establishing connections to 400 communities that had been abandoned by the oldcompany. Then the company established an active presence in the neighbourhoods, listening to the peopleand working with them to solve problems. In summer 2000 La Coordinadora organized its first publichearings on SEMAPA, to begin a public process on building a broad, consensus-based definition of whatthe company must become, and received many proposals from civil society.The company has also taken a strong stand against any compensation to Bechtel for its "losses." Bechtel issuing the government of Bolivia for close to $40 million at the World Bank's International Court for theSettlement of Investment Disputes. It is claiming "expropriation" rights under a 1992 Bilateral InvestmentTreaty (BIT) that Bolivia signed with Holland. Bechtel, an American company, must have sensed theconflicts in Bolivia brewing. In late 1999, it moved its holding company for Tunari from the CaymanIslands to Holland, thereby gaining the right to sue South America's poorest country.While the Bolivian government has officially said it will fight this challenge, there are those in thegovernment who feel it best to pay Bechtel its compensation to prove that Bolivia is ready for economicglobalization and will be a "good" global player in the WTO. There is a real concern that the governmentof Bolivia is now in secret negotiations with Bechtel to settle that dispute out of court.In the early months of 2001, a very disturbing pattern of surveillance, infiltration, harassment and physicalattacks against members of La Coordinadora has emerged. It is widely understood that both LaCoordinadora and SEMAPA have powerful enemies in the echelons of power in the Bolivian and stategovernments. A failure on the part of the citizens to run their own water company could be used as awarning to others around the world who stand up to water privatization and the power of the World Bank.HIGH-TECH WATER GUZZLERSSimilar water conflicts are growing in the computer industry, where big corporations are claiming unfairshares of local water supplies. Computer manufacturers use massive quantities of de-ionized fresh water toproduce their goods and are constantly searching for new sources. Increasingly, this search is pitting gianthigh-tech corporations against economically and socially marginalized peoples in a battle for local watersources.Electronics is the world's fastest-growing manufacturing industry, according to the Silicon Valley ToxicsCoalition. Giants such as IBM, AT&T, Intel, NEC, Fujitsu, Siemans, Phillips, Sumitomo, Honeywell, andSamsung have annual net sales exceeding the gross domestic product of many countries. Originallythought to be a "clean" industry, high-tech has left a staggering pollution legacy in its short history. In1980, the U.S. congress set up the Superfund program through the EPA to locate, investigate and clean upthe worst sites in the nation. Presently, the Silicon Valley has more EPA toxic Superfund sites than anyother area in the U.S. plus more than 150 groundwater contamination sites, many related to high-techmanufacturing. Close to 30 percent of the ground water beneath and around Phoenix, Arizona, has beencontaminated, well over half by the high-tech sector.There are currently about 900 semi-conductor manufacturing plants, or fabrication facilities (fabs) makingcomputer wafers (used for computer chips) around the world. Another 140 plants are now underconstruction. These plants consume a staggering amount of water. For example, Intel Fab, located on thehigh desert near Albuquerque, New Mexico, is permitted to use nearly 6 million gallons (18 million liters)of water per day, or enough to supply a small town.At this rate (including the new plants under construction) the industry will be using over 500 billiongallons (1,500 billion liters) of water and producing over 100 billion gallons (300 billion liters) of wastewater each year. Much of the new construction is in water-poor countries or in the desert, but as localactivists say, "Water flows uphill to money."The question is: where will the water come from? The Southwest Network for Economic Justice and theCampaign for Responsible Technology explain: "In an arena of such limited resources, a struggle ensuesbetween those who have traditionally enjoyed these resources and those newcomers who look at theseresources with covetous eyes."High-tech companies are engaging in mechanisms to capture traditional water rights: water pricing,whereby industry pressures governments for subsidies and circumvents city utility equipment to directlypump water, thus paying much less than residential water users pay for water; water mining, wherebycompanies gain rights to deplete the aquifers while driving up the access costs to smaller users such asfamily farmers; water ranching, whereby industry buys up water rights of ranches and farmers; and wastedumping, whereby industry contaminates the local water sources and then passes the costs on to thecommunity.Despite increasing industrial demand, conservation programs aimed at ordinary people are not applied toindustry. "While some residents tore out their lawns last year [1996] to save water," the AlbuquerqueTribune wrote of a city conservation project, "it poured with increasing volume through the spigots ofindustry." While residents had to decrease their use by 30 percent, Intel Corporation, a software company,was allowed to increase its use by the same amount. In addition, Intel pays four times less than the city'sresidents for its water. Perhaps the most disturbing trend, however, is the deliberate destruction of a localpueblo traditional acequia—a collective system of agricultural water distribution—to feed the voraciousappetite of the high-tech giants.Under the new commercial system, water is separated from the land it belongs to and transported greatdistances; this is anathema to the local indigenous ways. Says John Carangelo, a mayordomo of the LaJoya Acequia Association, "In New Mexico, where the total finite supply of water is allegedly fullyappropriated, the location of a high-tech industry is dependent on the purchase of existing water rights.This high demand for water and their vast financial resources makes water a valuable commercialproduct." He warns that water trading could hollow out rural America.Local sources, however, will clearly not be sufficient to meet industrial needs, given the aquifer depletiontaking place in many high-tech-intensive areas. The companies are starting to look farther afield withintheir own countries or abroad for new sources of water; the global trade in water provides a possible newsource. Given the rapid growth of high-tech companies in the developing world, particularly China, it isentirely possible that current bulk water exports are being negotiated to feed the voracious water appetiteof the global technology industry.THE GLOBAL TRADE IN WATERPIPE SCHEMESThe water privateers are now also setting their sights on the mass export of bulk water by diversion, bypipelines and by supertanker. Modified tanker deliveries already take place in certain regions that arewilling to pay top dollar for water on an emergency basis. Barges carry loads of fresh water to islands inthe Bahamas and tankers deliver water to Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Turkey is preparing to sell its waterby converted oil tankers and pipeline from the Manavgat River to Cyprus, Malta, Libya, Israel, Greece andEgypt. In the summer of 2000, Israel began negotiations to buy over 13 billion gallons of water a yearfrom Turkey; the tankers are already moored to huge yellow floating stations two miles offshore, awaitingdelivery orders. Turkey's water company says it has the pumps and pipes to export four to eight times thatamount.To deal with droughts in southern European countries, the European Commission is looking into thepossibility of tapping into the sources of water-rich countries such as Austria. If its plans to establish aEuropean Water Network are realized, Alpine water could be flowing into Spain or Greece, rather thanVienna's reservoirs, within a decade. "This means that in theory we could supply everyone in the EuropeanUnion, all 370 million of them," declares Herbert Schroefelbauer, deputy chairman of Verbund, thecountry's largest electrical utility. A high-tech pipeline already transports quality spring water from theAustrian Alps to Vienna, and the proposal to extend this system to other countries is creating great uneaseamong Austria's environmentalists, who warn of the damage bulk exports could have on the sensitivealpine ecosystem.Gerard Mestrallet of Suez Lyonnaise is planning another Suez Canal—this time in Europe. He hasannounced his intention to build a giant 160-mile aqueduct to transport water from the Rhone Riverthrough France to the Catalonian capital, Barcelona.To address England's growing water crisis, some political and corporate leaders are calling for large-scaleexports of water from Scotland, by tanker and pipeline. Already, several English companies are exploringthe possibility of water exports and one Scottish entrepreneur told The Scotsman that Scottish companiesare also interested. Complicating the political sensitivities is the fact that Scotland still has a publiclyowned water system, while English water is run by privatized companies. Ironically, some of thesecompanies have been lukewarm to exports because the scarcity of water in England has kept prices andprofits high.Professor George Flemming of Strathclyde University claims that it would be relatively simple to extendpipelines and natural waterways that already exist between the north of Scotland and Edinburgh to Londonand other parts of England. However, support for water sovereignty in Scotland is strong. WhenScotland's water authority, West of Scotland Water, publicly sounded out a plan to sell surplus water toSpain, Morocco and the Middle East, public reaction forced it to back off. Still, many see this reluctance astemporary; Flemming says England and Wales are running out of water because of global warming andthat imports of bulk water are inevitable.In Australia, United Water International has secured the contract of the water system of Adelaide (locatedin southern Australia) and has developed a 15-year plan to export its water to other countries for computersoftware and irrigation. Domestic companies were not allowed to bid for this contract because it wasassumed that a large transnational would increase the value of the water exports, now expected to be in therange of $628 million.Several companies around the world are developing technology whereby large quantities of fresh waterwould be loaded into huge sealed bags and towed across the ocean for sale. The Nordic Water SupplyCompany in Oslo, Norway, has signed a contract to deliver 7 million cubic meters of water per year inbags to northern Cyprus. During the Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm used water bags to supply water totheir troops.Aquarius Water Trading and Transportation Ltd. of England and Greece has begun the first commercialdeliveries of fresh water by polyurethane bags, towed like barges through waterways. The company,whose corporate investors include Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, delivers water to the Greek Islands where apiping system links the bag to the main water supply on the island. Aquarius predicts that the market willsoon exceed 200 million metric tons per year. The company's bag fleet consists of eight 720-ton bags andtwo 2,000-ton versions. The larger bags hold two million liters of water each. Aquarius has completedresearch and development on bags ten times their size and is searching for the capital investment toproduce them. The company has its sights set on Israel, and claims to have the interest of several majorwater companies.Nowhere are dreams for the trade in water as big as they are in North America. Every few years, plans todivert massive amounts of Canadian water to water-scarce areas of the United States, Asia and the MiddleEast by tanker, pipeline, or rerouting of the natural river systems, are raised, only to be shut down bypublic protest. One of the largest proposed diversion projects was called the GRAND Canal—the GreatRecycling and Northern Development Canal. It originally called for the building of a dike across JamesBay at the mouth of Hudson Bay (both of which now flow north) to create a giant freshwater reservoir outof James Bay and the twenty rivers flowing into it. A massive series of dikes, canals, dams, power plantsand locks would divert this water at a rate of 62,000 gallons a second down a 167-mile canal to GeorgianBay, where it would be flushed through the Great Lakes and taken to the U.S. Sun Belt.The NAWAPA—the North American Water and Power Alliance—was another. The original planenvisaged building a large number of major dams to trap the Yukon, Peace and Liard rivers into a giantreservoir that would flood one-tenth of British Columbia to create a canal from Alaska to Washington stateand supply water through existing canals and pipelines to thirty-five American states. The volume divertedwould be roughly equivalent to the average total annual discharge of the St. Lawrence River.In the early 1990s, a consortium named Multinational Water and Power Inc. spent $500,000 promoting thediversion of water from the North Thompson River (a tributary of the Fraser River) into the ColumbiaRiver system for delivery by pipeline to California.In the last decade, these projects have quietly been drawing support again from the business community inCanada. In 1991 Canadian Banker magazine said that water export would become a multi-million dollarbusiness: "The concept of NAWAPA...remains a potentially awesome catalyst of economic andenvironmental change."In the same year, the Report on Business magazine stated: "Pollution, population growth andenvironmental crusading are expected to put enormous pressure on the world's supply of fresh water overthe next ten years. Some of Canada's largest engineering companies are gearing up for the day when wateris moved around the world like oil or wheat or wood…What will be important is who has the right to sellit to the highest bidder."Meanwhile residents of water-scarce regions continue to live in denial. In a July 1998 article for TheAtlantic Monthly titled "Desert Politics," writer Robert Kaplan notes the blind faith of people living in theArizona desert believing that some magical solution to their water shortage will manifest itself while theycontinue to build in an area never meant for human habitat in these numbers. He notes that more than800,000 people live in greater Tucson alone and four million in Arizona, a tenfold increase in seventyyears. According to Wade Graham of Harper’s Magazine, municipal development in Phoenix is occurringat a rate of an acre every hour. Kaplan writes,"Maybe, as some visionary engineers think, the Southwest's salvation will come ultimately from thatshivery vastness of wet, green sponge to the north: Canada. In this scenario a network of new dams,reservoirs, and tunnels would supply water from the Yukon and British Columbia to the Mexican border,while a giant canal would bring desalinized Hudson Bay water from Quebec to the American Midwest,and supertankers would carry glacial water from the British Columbian coast to Southern California—allto support an enlarged network of post-urban, multi-ethnic pods pulsing with economic activity."CANADA AND ALASKA: OPEC OF WATER?Similarly, the call to export water by supertanker is heating up again in Canada after a lull of a few years.In British Columbia, a number of export companies such as Western Canada Water, Snow Cap Water,White Bear Water and Multinational Resources were already lined up for business when the governmentbanned the export of bulk water in 1993. One project was to involve a Texas company prepared to pay fora fleet of 12 to 16 of the world's largest supertankers (500,000 deadweight tons) to operate around theclock. Under this one contract, the annual volume of water to be shipped to California was equivalent tothe total annual water consumption of the city of Vancouver.The government that made the decision to ban bulk water exports is politically committed to this position,but low in the public opinion polls for reasons unrelated to this law. A future government in BritishColumbia might easily reverse this policy, opening a floodgate of export proposals. Canadian water expertRichard Bocking explains that the same companies would transport oil and water, in some cases, emptyingoil on one leg of the trip, and carrying water home on the return voyage."Water export from the B.C. coast would involve huge supertankers, operating year round on tightschedules. They would wind their way through tortuous coastal waterways, maneuvering around islandsand reefs in an area where no well-developed marine traffic management system exists. There are strongand often turbulent tidal currents in coastal inlets where winter winds often reach ferocious velocities."These huge tankers would travel through waters that are amongst the world's finest for recreationalboating and fishing. Pods of killer whales move regularly through these waters. Along with commercialand sports fisheries, spawning for almost the entire commercial oyster industry of coastal B.C. is locatedhere. The enormous fuel tanks of supertankers are full of bunker C fuel, the worst possible grade of oil inenvironmental terms. With currents, winds, rocks, and reefs intersecting with tight ship schedules, thestage is set for tragedy on a grand scale."In recent years, two other Canadian provinces received corporate applications to allow the export of bulkwater for commercial profit. In the spring of 1998, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment approved aplan by Nova Group to export millions of liters of Lake Superior water by tanker to Asia. However, theprovince later rescinded the grant after an outcry from the International Joint Commission, (then) U.S.Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who claimed that the US had shared jurisdiction over LakeSuperior, and the public, most notably those living in the Great Lakes area of Canada and the U.S. Theother application, a request to export 52 billion liters of water a year from pristine Gisborne Lake in theNewfoundland wilderness, seemed poised to receive the go-ahead, given recent statements made byNewfoundland’s new premeir, Roger Grimes. The company, McCurdy Group of Newfoundland, plans toship the water to the Middle East by supertanker.Newspaper and business publications are intensifying the debate. In February 1999 the National Postcalled Canada's water "blue gold" and demanded that the government "turn on the tap." Its businesscolumnist, Terence Corcoran, added fuel to the fire: "Canada is a future OPEC of water. Here's aworthwhile long-term bet: By 2010, Canada will be exporting large quantities of fresh water to the U.S.,and more by tanker to parched nations all over the globe."The issue will not be whether to export, but how much money the federal government and the provinceswill be able to extract from massive water shipments. Rather than resisting the idea of water exports,Canada will end up scrambling to head the WWET, the World Water Export Treaty, signed in 2006 by 25countries with vast water reserves. Using the OPEC model, they will attempt to cartelize the world supplyof water and drive the price up." The Calgary Herald's editorial board agreed, "Canada has plenty of freshwater, so let the commercial exports begin."However, Canada isn't the only water-rich region being eyed by transnational business. A Canadiancompany, Global Water Corporation, has signed an agreement with Sitka, Alaska, to export 18 billiongallons (58 billion liters) per year of glacier water to China where it is to be bottled in one of that country's“free trade zones” to save on labor costs. Although the company brochure acknowledges that there is asevere water crisis in China, it entices investors "to harvest the accelerating opportunity...as traditionalsources of water around the world become progressively depleted and degraded" and laments the fact thatthe government of British Columbia in Canada has placed a ban on bulk water exports.The company is now engaged in a "strategic alliance to plan an international strategy to move waterglobally in bulk tankers" with the Signet Companies, an international maritime shipping company based inHouston, Texas. Signet has been engaged in the bulk movement of water since 1986 when both WesternCanada Water and its predecessor contracted the shipping company for the "design, development, analysisand implementation of an international water transport system." As Global explains, "Water has movedfrom being an endless commodity that may be taken for granted to a rationed necessity that may be takenby force."But Global is only one of the many companies with interests in Alaskan water. Alaska has become the firstjurisdiction in the world to permit the commercial export of bulk water. The Alaska Business Monthlybluntly states, "Everyone agrees water has 21st century potential as an export from Alaska, andcommunities from Annette Island to the Aleutians are thinking about turning on the tap." The journalreports that a Washington-based company has begun shipping city tap water from Alaska on barges to bebottled in Kent, Washington, and that several other projects are in the works.Alaska's water resources are staggering, reports the pro-export Alaska Business Monthly. For example, itsuggests that if Sitka filled a million-gallon tanker per day, this would still be less than 10 percent of itscurrent water usage. At Eklutna, Brian Crewdson, assistant to the general manager of the AnchorageWater and Wastewater Utility, estimates the export potential to be as high as 30 million gallons (90 millionliters) per day.He reports that in 1995 a Mitsubishi-leased tanker taking on petroleum by-products for processingoverseas also loaded a couple of millions of gallons of Eklutna water for shipment to Japan. He believesthis may have been the first tanker shipment of water out of the United States and when word got out, hereceived calls from companies interested in doing business in New York City, Washington D.C., andCharleston, S.C. Crewdson adds that there is more money in bulk water exports than bottled water exports.One entrepreneur who is poised to profit from Alaskan water exports spent much of his career shapingwater policy in the public sector. Ric Davidge, president of Arctic Ice and Water Exports, served in theU.S. Department of the Interior as chairman of the Federal Land Policy Group and was a key advisor toboth the federal and state governments in the clean-up operations for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. AsAlaska's director of water, Davidge was responsible for initiating the marketing of the state's water andestablished the policy framework that allowed for the export of water. Soon after he set the export wheelsin motion, he moved into the private sector and began a water export business. He is now known as"Alaska's Water Czar."Davidge's curriculum vitae states that he provides a "wide range of consulting services to foreign anddomestic companies developing bulk and bottled water exports from Alaska." Clients include companiesfrom Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Alaska, Washington, Canada, South Korea, Tanzania, Japan, Mexico,California and Nevada.There are some who say that bulk export of water is too expensive to be economically viable and suggestthat the future lies with desalination. However, the World Bank points out that the world has alreadytapped all its low-cost, easily accessible water reserves; the financial and environmental costs of tappingnew supplies, however they are developed, will be two to three times more than those of existinginvestments and the demand will be there even if the sources are expensive.While desalination will be used by some countries, it is a very expensive process and heavily fossil fuelintensive. Massive desalination projects would be possible only to those countries with abundant energysupplies, and would seriously add to global warming—a crisis already exacerbated by the freshwatershortage.Davidge points out that the price of water on a dollar-per-unit basis is already higher than refined gasoline."Everything from soft drinks to French wine to microchips will get many times more expensive as areareserves of clean water are drawn down." He argues that desalinated water is more expensive to produceand more environmentally destructive than bulk water shipments in tankers and water bags.Quebec businessman Paul Barbeau of Aquaroute, Inc., a company "dedicated to water transportation inbulk," agrees. He says that water can be easily exported by tanker vessel on very short notice. He claimsthat at his former company, Enercem Tankers, he converted and operated a petrol carrier into a watercarrier which was used to transport Canadian water to the Bahamas. "Capturing water is easy. A floatingship can simply pump what may be declared as a water ballast. This is done daily on any coastal orocean-going vessel or even more simply with any barge as there are already some on the Great Lakes. Thetools to export water afloat are already there. What is missing is the precise development in law to preventan uncontrolled practice."Even some environmentalists believe that water commodification and trade is inevitable. Says AllerdStikker, "It could very well be that in the beginning of the 21st century clean water will start to become amajor regional and inter-regional commodity, being produced and traded in volumes undreamt of today."Especially in light of economic globalization, it is a myth that large cross-border transfers of water are noteconomically feasible. The only difference between these and other mega-projects is that water becomes aproduct transferred across borders. These mega-projects are identical in purpose to domestic water projectsand governed by the same economic analysis. There is no reason to believe that current massivegovernment subsidies to industry and agribusiness are going to end anytime soon. Transnationalcorporations operating in water-intensive industries are going to expect local governments to find and fundthe water supplies they need before making investment and production decisions.BOTTLED WATER BECOMES BIG BUSINESSWhere there is a demand for the trade of water across borders, it is already well underway. The trade inbottled water is one of the fastest-growing (and least regulated) industries in the world. In the 1970s, theannual volume was 300 million gallons. By 1980, this figure had climbed to 630 million gallons, and bythe end of the decade, the world was drinking two billion gallons of bottled water every year. But thesenumbers pale in comparison to the explosion in bottled water sales in the last five years—over 20 percentannually. In 2000 over 8 billion gallons (24 billion liters) of water was bottled and traded globally, over 90percent of it in non-renewable plastic containers.In Canada, the amount of water extracted by bottlers has grown by more than 50 percent in less than adecade; bottlers, who pay no fee for the water they capture, have the legal right to extract about 30 billionliters a year—1,000 liters for every person in the country. Almost half of it is exported to the U.S.As the world's freshwater supply becomes more degraded, those who can afford it are favoring thepackaged item, even though bottled water is subjected to less rigorous testing and purity standards than tapwater. A March 1999 study by U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that muchbottled water is no safer than tap water and some is decidedly less so. One-third of 103 brands of bottledwater studied contained levels of contamination, including traces of arsenic and E. coli and at leastone-fourth of bottled water is actually bottled tap water, the study found.Alongside the giants of the industry, such as Perrier, Evian, Naya, Poland Spring, Clearly Canadian, LaCroix and Purely Alaskan, there are litreally thousands of smaller companies now in the business. As well,the big soft-drink players are entering the market in force. PepsiCo has its Aquafina line and Coca-Colahas just launched the North American version of its international label, Bon Aqua, called Dasani.Coca-Cola predicts that its water line, which is just processed tap water and sells for more than gasoline,will surpass its soft-drink line within a decade.These companies are engaged in a constant search for new water supplies to feed the insatiable appetite ofthe business and are engaging in the trade of water by tanker shipments and by purchasing water rightsfrom farmers. In rural communities all over the world, corporate interests are buying up farmland to accesswells and then moving on when supplies are depleted. In South America, foreign water corporations arebuying vast wilderness tracts and even whole water systems to hold for future development.Sometimes these companies leave dried-up systems in a whole area, not just their own land. A ferociousdebate has been taking place in Tillicum Valley, a picturesque fruit and wine district in British Columbia.Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp. has been mining the ground water of the region so relentlessly that localresidents and orchard growers say the company is "draining their water supply dry."Of course, the global income gap is mirrored in inequitable access to bottled water. The NRDC reports thatsome people spend up to 10,000 times more per gallon for bottled water than they do for tap water. For thesame price as one bottle of this "boutique" consumer item, 1,000 gallons (3,000 liters) of tap water couldbe delivered to homes, according to the American Water Works Association. Ironically, the same industrythat contributes to the destruction of public water sources—in order to provide "pure" water to the world'selite in non-renewable plastic—peddles its product as being environmentally friendly and part of a healthylifestyle.THE FAILURE OF GOVERNMENTSTOO LITTLE TOO LATEGovernments all over the world have been remiss in not recognizing the crisis surrounding the world'swater resources and for not taking steps to offset the coming emergency.True, in the developed world, there are some real success stories in the reclamation of rivers, lakes andestuaries choked with sewage and industrial pollution. The Hudson River in the U.S. was once given upfor dead; now it abounds with life. Citizens and governments have worked to ban some of the mostegregious toxins entering our water, such as DDT, and in December 2000 concluded a historic treatybanning the major persistent organic pollutants (POPs). As well they have forced the partial clean-up ofindustrial effluent such as waste from pulp and paper mills.The partial recovery of the Great Lakes through joint action of the bordering provinces and states, forexample, is being studied by scientists all over the world. After discovering that phosphorus was causingmuch of the deterioration, the governments of Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement in 1972, which strongly curbed the dumping of phosphorus and municipal sewage intothe lakes.As well, conservation efforts in Europe and North America have resulted in some reduction in householdand industrial water use, helping to slow the rate of aquifer withdrawal. Water use has actually dropped insome regions and industrial sectors in the U.S. by 10 to 20 percent since 1980, according to the UnitedStates Geological Survey. In the last decade, governments have begun to meet on a regular basis to beginto address the multiple crises of depletion, pollution, sanitation and equity of access.The United Nations declared the 1980s to be the International Drinking Water Supply and SanitationDecade and made some significant inroads toward providing infrastructure and clean water to someparticularly desperate communities. But the United Nations sadly admits that lack of money is seriouslyjeopardizing this campaign, and at its present rate, the world cannot expect to see full-service coveragebefore the year 2100.A statement of principles—The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development—emerged froma 1992 conference in Ireland. That document served as the foundation for the water chapter of Agenda 21,the global action plan developed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. These principles recognize the need toprotect watershed ecosystems and call for more long-range planning by governments to protect freshwaterresources. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development undertook a comprehensiveassessment of the world's freshwater resources, presented to the General Assembly in 1997. The reportoutlines areas for "urgent action," and calls for the organization to "facilitate inter-governmental dialogue"on taking action toward "sustainable development."Important as these steps are, they are not yet great enough nor coordinated enough to offset the otheractions, or inactions, of governments. As Klause Topfer of the United Nations Environment Program saidat a March 1998 water conference in Paris, "The fragmentation of authority for water across many sectorsand departments at the national and international levels has resulted in the absence of a common vision onthe sustainable use of this vital resource."The United Nations points out that governments in developed and developing countries alike give lowpriority to water issues and institutions; funding for research and solutions is abysmally inadequate.Freshwater management is in its infancy—and political commitment, public education and conservationawareness are sadly lacking all over the world. While environmental groups and huge financial costs haveslowed the enthusiasm for mega-projects such as dams and hydroelectric projects in some countries, othersare embracing such technology with zeal.Meanwhile, governments and industry continue to engage in destructive practices. While many Northerngovernments have banned the sale and use of toxins such as DDT within their borders, Northern-basedmultinationals continue to manufacture and peddle such harmful chemicals elsewhere. As a result, they arewidely used in the developing world. Massive use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and hormones areused in agriculture around the world. Traces of these toxins can be found in ecosystems in virtually everycountry on earth, including uninhabited wilderness and watersheds.Governments are failing to address another leading cause of water loss: leakage from municipalinfrastructure and irrigation systems. In the Third World, these problems are being exacerbated asgovernments sink deeper into poverty in the wake of the global financial meltdown. The World Bankreports that at least 50 percent of municipal water is wasted through leakage in the developing world. Forexample, in the Philippines' Manila, 57 percent of its municipal water is lost through leaks and theft. Indeveloping countries, reports World Resources, 60 to 75 percent of irrigation water never reaches the crop.In developed countries, where the technology and resources are available for improvements, governmentsare instead cutting spending on public works and eviscerating environmental laws in the name of globalcompetitiveness. Already crumbling inner-city systems are deteriorating in most First World cities. InBritain, for example, Worldwatch Institute estimates that one-quarter of the water that enters thedistribution network is lost because of broken pipes and other problems. Until it started to address theproblem, Boston, Massachusetts, lost almost 40 percent of its municipal water supplies annually fromsimilar neglect. The average Canadian household uses about 500,000 liters a year, but almost half iswasted in washing cars or leaving taps to drip. The Canadian government estimates that it will cost $53billion (Can $80 billion) to upgrade deteriorating water infrastructures.A coordinated effort by the world's governments could change this pattern of waste within a decade. Withcurrent technologies and methods available today, a conservative estimate suggests that the agriculturesector could cut its water usage by close to 50 percent, industries by 50 to 90 percent, and cities byone-third without sacrificing economic output or quality of life. What is missing is political will andvision.As well, millions of people die every year from contaminated water because many governments don'tallow local communities to manage their own resources. A March 1999 study by the World Bank and theUnited Nations Development Program reports that international aid programs channel too much moneythrough government agencies and utilities and don't trust local communities to manage their own systems.The report also accuses international agencies and governments of forcing new technologies oncommunities that cannot afford to maintain them. As an example of what can work, the report highlights apilot project in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous and least developed state, in which villagers electtheir own water-management committees and oversee public budgets. The local test projects costtwo-thirds less than those delivered by the government water board.Governments are also culpable by their massive subsidization of the global transportation system thatunderpins economic globalization. For example, as Victor Menotti points out, if the full cost oftransporting consumer goods across the ocean for assembly and then back again was reflected in the finalprice, the volume of world trade would diminish significantly.Governments subsidize the water-guzzling high-technology sector in many ways. The city of Austin,Texas, not only gives tax breaks to high-tech companies (recently $125 million to Samsung and $56million to Sematech), but also reduced water rates. Austin's industrial water rates are less than two-thirdsof what residents pay. For its Rio Rancho facility in New Mexico, Intel recently received a tax subsidy of$8 billion via an industrial revenue bond and an additional $250 million in tax credits and other subsidies.The Southwest Network and the Campaign for Responsible Technology reports in Sacred Waters, "Thegreatest form of cost externalization related to water...comes in the form of water price subsidies, waterdelivery and treatment infrastructure subsidies, and restricted access to traditional and low-income waterusers caused by the massive use by this industry."Further, in the absence of legislation or even debate in most countries, the privatization of water andwastewater services is steadily advancing. Through "public-private partnerships," municipal governmentsin many countries are blurring the lines between private companies and democratically electedgovernments. Often, these "partnerships" are the first step to full privatization. Because many of the samecompanies providing these services are likely to move into the area of bulk export, dams and waterdiversion, governments are granting them access to water resources through the back door.TRADING AND BUYING WATER RIGHTSCommercial water trading is growing in many parts of the world, usually with governments' blessing. InChile, where privatization is a government goal, water companies are buying water rights from farmersand selling them to cities. Informal, small-scale water trading among farmers is common throughout thedeveloping world. As long as these arrangements are made between local farmers and local communities,the system can work equitably; but if the practice is unregulated, it is often used to drive up the price ofwater for the poor. When large corporations enter the game, they typically buy up block water rights,deplete water resources in an area, and move on.A similar practice is already common in the fishing industry. Large corporations are buying upgovernment-granted fishing licences called Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs)—an entitlement thatcan be leased or sold, permitting the holder to catch a specified quantity of fish. Originally designed bygovernments to control overfishing, ITQs are now concentrating the fishery industry in the hands of asmall number of giant fishing corporations who encourage destructive fishing practices and strangle localcommunities. As one out-of-work Newfoundland fisher said, "For the first time in history, the fish areowned before they are caught."In California, water rights trading is becoming a very big business. In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed abill allowing farmers, for the first time in U.S. history, to sell their water rights to cities. In 1997, InteriorSecretary Bruce Babbitt announced plans to open a major water market among the users of the ColoradoRiver. The new system would allow interstate sales of Colorado River water among its southern users,Arizona, Nevada and California.Wade Graham (Harper's Magazine) calls this development "the largest deregulation of a national resourcesince the Homestead Act of 1862" and adds that the only thing that could have topped it would have beenthe privatization of all U.S. federal lands. Babbitt is counting on the free market to do what politicians andthe courts have not been able to do—referee between the many claims to the Colorado's water.The deals are expected to be small at first (Nevada has already arranged to pay Arizona to store water forfuture use), but in the long run, the fast-growing areas where high-tech industry is concentrated will beable to obtain vast quantities of reasonably priced water from a virtually limitless source. As a warning,Graham points to a failed experiment in water privatization in the Sacramento Valley in the early 1990s.For the first time, Southern California cities and farmers were no longer prevented from buying waterdirectly from Northern California farmers, hoarding it and selling it on the open market. Large-scaleoperators helped themselves to huge amounts of water and stored it with the Drought Water Bank until theprice was right to sell. A small handful of sellers walked away with huge profits, while other farmersfound their wells run dry for the first time in their lives. The results were disastrous; the water tabledropped and the land sank in some places.Graham compares this incident with the Owens Valley tragedy at the turn of the last century. The oncelush, water-rich Owens Valley was bled dry when water officials from Los Angeles devised a scheme todivert Owens Valley water to Southern California. "The Owens Valley scam demonstrated that althoughonly a few individuals or corporate entities hold registered water rights, the entire community dependsupon those rights...Water in California is prosperity, and if the legal right to use it can be privatized andtransferred away, then the prosperity of the community may go with it."Water rights trading, however, is growing in California despite the storm warnings. In 1993, the billionaireBass brothers of Texas quietly bought up 40,000 acres of Imperial Valley farmland in order to sell water tothe city of San Diego, California. The project fell through when it was discovered that the district, notprivate farmers, owned the property. In January 1999, U.S. Filter Corp. bought a ranch and 14,000acre-feet of water north of Reno, Nevada, which it intends to divert by pipeline to Reno for commercialsale. The local community of Lassen County says it will be left without its lifeblood. Santa Monica–basedSamda plans to pump well water from its 2,000-acre ranch in Fremont Valley north of Mojave and deliverit by pipeline to Los Angeles. The Stockman Water Co. has received an endorsement from the city ofParker, California, to pump water out of the San Luis Valley to Denver, Colorado.In early 2001, the Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles contracted to buy as much as 47 trilliongallons of water from the state's largest farming company, Cadiz Inc. In a move of great concern toenvironmentalists, who fear a repeat of Owens Valley, the water will be pumped from an aquifer deepunder the Mojave Desert. Tony Coelho, formerly a powerful Democratic congressman and a chairman ofAl Gore's presidential campaign, says that this water source is so valuable, no dollar figure can be put onit. "Careers are made and lost in water politics, and that will be true here." Adds Keith Brackpool, theBritish entrepreneur who runs Cadiz, "If you do the math, the price of our water just soars."Little wonder California's Governor Gray Davis says, "Water is more precious than gold." In a privatemarket, the superior purchasing power of large cities such as Los Angeles and of corporations such as Intelcould force the cost of water up far enough to price farmers, small towns and indigenous peoples out of themarket.CLOSED-DOOR DEALSCompanies with water interests stand to reap huge windfalls as governments around the world, havingallowed municipal infrastructures to crumble, now hand the water market over to the private sector. Andthey are doing it with the full participation and approval of international government agencies such as theUnited Nations and the World Water Council.In July 2000, the United Nations announced a "Global Compact" with a number of major transnationalcorporations, including Nike, Shell Oil and Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux. Many NGOs were surprised anddeeply concerned about the UN giving its blessing to corporations with bad international reputations inreturn for their cooperation with a handful of purely voluntary guidelines. But this development is verymuch in keeping with the pro-privatization position the UN has been following for some years now.At a March 1998 conference in Paris, the UN Economic and Social Council Commission on SustainableDevelopment proposed that governments turn to "large multinational companies" for capital and expertiseand called for an "open market" in water rights and an enlarged role for the private sector. The UNpromised to mobilize private funds for the vast investments needed for networks and treatment plants andfor the technology needed to ensure future water supplies.The United Nations, with the World Bank and the International Water Resources Association, is also afounding member of the World Water Council, "the world's water-policy think tank" as the Councildescribes itself. The World Water Council's 175 member groups include leading professional associations,global water corporations, government water ministries, and international financial institutions. One of itstwo vice presidents is Rene Coulomb of Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux.The Council held the first World Water Forum in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 1997, and the second in TheHague in March 2000, attended by 5,700 participants from all over the world and chaired by then WorldBank Vice-President Ismail Serageldin. While ostensibly called to bring together "stakeholders" in thewater issue from around the world to address the global water crisis, the Forum was instead used as ashowcase for the transnational water and energy companies and even big food corporations such as Nestleand Unilever in order to promote privatization and full cost recovery as the only solution to the world'swater shortages. Most panels and workshops were chaired by World Bank and corporate executives whoalso made up the lion's share of panellists; only one public sector union representative was invited to speakduring the entire five-day conference.NGOs were allowed to attend, but the prohibitive cost of the conference fee and accommodation ensuredthat only a small number were present. Government officials from more than 160 countries attended, butwere relegated to observer status and approving the final report of the Forum, which refused to name wateras a human right, calling it instead a "human need." This is not semantic; if water is a human need it can beservices by the private sector. A human right cannot be sold. Throughout this process, governments andthe World Bank were sidelined, as corporations emerged as the dominant players on the world water stage.A second new international water agency was also created in 1996, composed of many of the sameplayers. The Global Water Partnership (GWP) describes itself as an "action-oriented network" oforganizations interested in water issues with a mission to find "practical tools" for solving water problems,particularly in developing countries. Its membership includes a number of NGOs, government agencies(like Canada's Canadian International Development Agency, whose former head, Margaret Catley-Carlson, is GWP's new chair), multilateral banks and the private sector. Rene Coulomb of Suez Lyonnaisedes Eaux sits on the steering committee, as does a representative of the Switzerland-based World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development and the World Bank. Another representative of Suez Lyonnaise desEaux, Ivan Cheret, sits on the GWP's Technical Advisory Committee.Its operating principle that water is an "economic good" and has an "economic value in all its competinguses," is the basis for GWP's priority on the privatization of water services. For instance, in November1997, this advisory group held a meeting in Vitória, Brazil, in partnership with the Brazilian Associationof Water Resources and the Inter-American Development Bank. Among the issues considered were"public-private partnerships for water management." Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, through its membership onthis committee, is in a privileged position to bid for these "partnership" contracts with the "goodhousekeeping seal of approval" of the world's governments and the United Nations.It is clear that transnational water corporations are waging an offensive on many fronts to take over theagenda of international sustainable development programs for their own profit and that political leaders,the World Bank and the United Nations are openly colluding. Their way is paved by the utter failure ofgovernments everywhere to protect their water heritage. The private sector argues that it is time to give theprivate sector the chance to manage this precious resource and even some environmentalists, having givenup on governments altogether, agree.In fact, governments are losing their right to protect their water heritage by default. Most governmentshave very few laws or regulations regarding their water systems. Most haven't even begun to address theissues of privatization, commercialization and trade in water. Yet, while they leave their water resourcesunprotected by legislation, they are actively negotiating and signing international trade and investmentagreements that supersede national law. These treaties include trade in water, and some explicitly grantwater rights to the private sector. The most immediate example is NAFTA signed by Canada, the UnitedStates and Mexico in 1993.THE THREAT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENTAGREEMENTSWATER, NAFTA AND THE FTAAChapter 3 of NAFTA establishes obligations regarding the trade in goods. Using the General Agreementon Tariffs and Trade (GATT) definition of a "good" which clearly lists "waters, including natural orartificial waters and aerated waters", NAFTA adds in an explanatory note that "ordinary natural water ofall kinds (other than sea water)" is included. Chapter 12 sets out a comprehensive regime to govern tradeand investment in the service sector, including water services. Chapter 11 establishes an extensive array ofinvestor rights, including investors in water goods and water services. Thus, under NAFTA, water is acommercial good, a service and an investment.There are three key provisions of NAFTA that place water at risk. The first is "National Treatment"whereby no country can "discriminate" in favour of its own private sector in the commercial use of itswater resources. For example, if a municipality privatizes its water delivery service, it would be obliged topermit competitive bids from water service corporations of the other NAFTA countries. Similarly, once apermit is granted to a domestic company to export water, the corporations of the other NAFTA partnercountries would have the same right of establishment to the commercial use of that country's waters as itsdomestic companies. If a Canadian company, for instance, gained the right to export Canadian water,American transnationals would have the right to help themselves to as much Canadian water as theywished.The second key provision is Article 315, the "proportionality" clause, under which a government of aNAFTA country cannot reduce or restrict the export of a resource to another NAFTA country once theexport flow has been established. Article 309 states that "no party may adopt or maintain any prohibitionor restriction on the exportation or sell for export of any good destined for the territory of another party"and this provision includes a ban on export taxes. This means that if the export of water were to commencebetween NAFTA countries, the tap couldn't be turned off. Exports of water would be guaranteed to thelevel they had acquired over the preceding 36 months; the more water exported, the more water required tobe exported. Even if new evidence were found that massive movements of water were harmful to theenvironment, these requirements would remain in place.The third provision is "Investor State" (Chapter 11) whereby a corporation of a NAFTA country can suethe government of another NAFTA country for cash compensation if the company is refused its nationaltreatment rights or if that country implements legislation that "expropriates" the company's future profit.Only a "foreign-based" company can sue using Chapter 11; domestic companies have to abide by nationallaw and cannot sue their own government for compensation under NAFTA. As a result of this provision,there has been a flurry of investor-state suits in North America challenging environmental, health andsafety legislation in the three countries.Chapter 11 could apply to water in two ways. If any NAFTA country, state or province tried to limit thedelivery of water services or the commercial export of its water to its domestic sector, corporations in theother countries would have the right to financial compensation for "discrimination." In fact, the very act ofa government attempt to ban bulk water exports automatically makes water a commercial tradablecommodity, triggering NAFTA. The very same law that excluded them would trigger foreign investors’NAFTA rights, and they could demand financial compensation for lost opportunities. For now, as long aswater is lying in its natural state, it is safe from trade regulations.As well, under Chapter 11, changes to government policy could trigger a challenge, as foreign companieshave the advantage under this ruling. For example, if the state of Alaska were to reverse its policy and banwater exports or change the law so that only Alaskan companies could export water in order to keep jobsat home, the U.S. government would be vulnerable to a huge investor-state challenge. Global Water Corp.of British Columbia is poised to make a great deal of money from its contract with Alaska. Because it is aCanadian and not an American company, Global would have rights not accorded to U.S. domesticcompanies in the same situation.The first NAFTA Chapter 11 case on water was filed in the fall of 1998. Sun Belt Water Inc. of SantaBarbara, California, sued the Canadian government because the company lost a contract to export water toCalifornia when the Canadian province of British Columbia banned the export of bulk water in 1991. SunBelt alleges that the ban contravenes NAFTA and is seeking $10 billion in damages. "Because of NAFTA,we are now stakeholders in the national water policy in Canada," declared Sun Belt's CEO Jack Lindsay.All of these corporate-friendly provisions—and more—are contained in the FTAA, currently beingnegotiated by 34 countries of the Americas and the Caribbean. Although it is based on the NAFTA model,the FTAA goes far beyond NAFTA in its scope and power.The FTAA, as it now stands, would introduce into the Western Hemisphere comprehensive newprovisions on services that, along with Chapter 11, would create a trade powerhouse with sweeping newauthority over every aspect of life in Canada, the Americas and the Caribbean (except Cuba). Combiningthese two powers into one agreement, the FTAA would give unequalled new rights to the transnationalcorporations of the hemisphere to compete for and even challenge every publicly funded service of itsgovernments, including water and environmental protection.As well, the proposed FTAA contains new provisions on competition policy, government procurement,market access and dispute settlement that, together with the inclusion of services and investment, couldremove the ability of all the governments of the Americas to create or maintain laws, standards andregulations to protect the health, safety and well-being of their citizens and the environment they share.Also, the FTAA negotiators appear to have chosen to emulate the WTO rather than NAFTA in key areasof standard setting and dispute settlement, where the WTO rules are tougher.WATER AND THE WTONAFTA is not the only existing trade agreement that compromises water. The WTO was created in 1995at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT in order to enforce GATT and other agreements.The WTO's 134 member nations work toward eliminating all remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers inorder to promote the movement of capital, goods and services across nation-state borders. The WTOcontains no minimum standards to protect laborrights, social programs, the environment or naturalresources.The essence of the WTO is deregulation; it is intended to render it more difficult for nations to placesafeguards or conditions on exportable products, including natural resources. The market is givenpre-emptive rights to determine the course of resource development and nation-state rules are not to betrade- or profit-inhibiting. Tough environmental laws can be disputed by member countries at the WTO asbeing non-tariff barriers to trade. Therefore, domestic standards that are lower than the global average areprotected; those that are higher become clear targets for dispute. Once a WTO dispute panel issues aruling, worldwide conformity is required. A country is obliged to harmonize its laws, face the prospect oftrade sanctions or pay direct compensation.The WTO's authority includes water; it incorporates the same GATT definition of a "good" as doesNAFTA. Although the WTO does not yet include an investor-state clause, in some ways it is more of adanger to the protection of water than NAFTA. This is because, unlike any other global institution, theWTO has both the legislative and judicial authority to challenge laws, policies and programs of membercountries if they do not conform to WTO rules, and it has the power to strike down these rules if they canbe shown to be "trade restrictive."One provision of the WTO particularly places water at risk. Article XI specifically prohibits the use ofexport controls for any purpose and eliminates quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. This meansthat quotas or bans on the export of water imposed for environmental purposes could be challenged as aform of protectionism. A GATT ruling that forced Indonesia to lift its ban on the export of raw logs and aNAFTA ruling against a similar practice in Canada do not bode well for a nation's right to protect itsnatural resources.Further, the WTO forces nations to forfeit their capacity to discriminate against imports on the basis oftheir consumption or production practices. Article I, "Most Favored Nation," and Article III, "NationalTreatment," require all WTO countries to treat "like" products exactly the same for the purposes of tradewhether or not they were produced under ecologically sound conditions. If it were discovered that thecommercial trade in water was destructive to watersheds, the WTO could prevent countries fromrestricting that trade because of environmental concerns.WTO defenders argue that an "exception" included in the GATT will protect the environment and naturalresources. According to Article XX, member countries can still adopt laws "necessary to protect human,animal or plant life or health...relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if suchmeasures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption."However, there is something known in trade jargon as a "chapeau" to Article XX, which means that theArticle can only be applied in "non-discriminatory" fashion and cannot be a disguised barrier to trade. Inthe individual dispute cases that have come before the WTO to test these "protections, in each case theWTO has upheld the rights of commerce over the rights of environmental protection.Also, any protections must be interpreted in a way that is "least trade restrictive." Further, the WTO doesnot recognize the authority of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and threatens to undermineagreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES). Says U.S.-based Public Citizen, "The emerging case law...indicates that the WTO keeps raisingthe bar against environmental laws." If panel rulings to date are any indication, water is at great risk underthe WTO, in spite of the so-called "exception."A new agreement of the WTO, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), poses anotherserious trade threat to water sovereignty and conservation. The GATS was established in 1994, at theconclusion of the "Uruguay Round" of the GATT and was one of the trade agreements adopted forinclusion when the WTO was formed in 1995. Negotiations were to begin five years later with the view of"progressively raising the level of liberalization." These talks got underway as scheduled in February2000, and are to reach a general agreement by December 2002.The GATS is called a "multilateral framework agreement," which means that its broad commission wasdefined at its inception and then, through permanent negotiations, new sectors and rules are to be added.Essentially, the GATS is mandated to restrict government actions in regard to services, through a set oflegally binding constraints backed up by WTO-enforced trade sanctions. Its most fundamental purpose isto constrain all levels of government in their delivery of services and to facilitate access to governmentcontracts by transnational corporations in a multitude of areas, including water and environmentalservices.The GATS covers hundreds of types of water services—sewer services, freshwater services, treatment ofwaste water, nature and landscape protection, construction of water pipes, waterways, tankers,groundwater assessment, irrigation, dams, bottled water, and water transport services, just to name a few.Crucially, the object of GATS disciplines are not services per se, but rather government actions, initiativesand regulations that pertain to services and limit or prevent private-sector rights to service industries. Noother agreement to date has attempted to reach so far into the policy jurisdiction of governments (althoughthe proposed FTAA services agreement is modelled on the GATS).Essentially, under proposed new wording, governments would have to prove that any measure orregulation related to water (and other services, like health care, utilities and education) were "necessary,"based on "transparent and objective criteria," in accordance with "relevant international standards," and theleast trade restrictive of all possible measures. For example, to defend standards on drinking water before aWTO trade panel, a government would have to prove that it had canvassed every conceivable way inwhich it might improve water quality, that it was subjected to an assessment of its impact on internationaltrade in water services, and that it opted for the approach that was least trade restrictive of the rights offoreign private water providers.Furthermore, the GATS has not even adopted the weak GATT Article XX exception relating toconservation, thus expressing an undeniable and deliberate intent to subordinate conservation goals tothose of trade liberalization. As Canadian trade expert Steven Shrybman notes in his March 2001 legalopinion on the GATS: "At risk is the public ownership of water resources, public sector water services,and the authority of governments to regulate corporate activity for environmental, conservation or publichealth reasons."WATER AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATIESIn addition to the above agreements, countries all over the world are signing Bilateral Investment Treaties(BITs) which, by and large, leave their natural resource sectors open to unconditional investment by oneanother's corporations. There are now 1,720 bilateral agreements and the number grows every year. MostBITs contain a form of NAFTA's Chapter 11 provision, allowing corporations of the signatory countries tosue governments for "expropriation" compensation. This is the trade venue chosen by Bechtel in its suitagainst the government of Bolivia.BITs are modelled on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a treaty proposed by membercountries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which was defeated inthe fall of 1998 due to international opposition. Drafted by the International Chamber of Commerce, theMAI contained the same investor-state rights as NAFTA, but applied them to a wider range of sectors andcorporations. Any "investor" of any member country could have claimed access to the natural resources ofany other country without discrimination and would have had the right to sue for compensation if denied.The MAI set out clear rules for privatization of public assets, including natural resources.These international trade and investment agreements are gaining in power and scope. Yet very few of theworld's citizens are aware of their contents or even their existence. No plan for water protection can affordto ignore them; they form a clear and present danger to water stewardship and must be deeply reformed orabolished.THE NEED FOR COMMON PRINCIPLES"Watersheds come in families; nested levels of intimacy. On the grandest scale thehydrologic web is like all humanity—Serbs, Russians, Koyukon Indians, Amish, the billionlives in the People's Republic of China—it's broadly troubled, but it's hard to know how tohelp. As you work upstream toward home, you're more closely related. The big river is likeyour nation, a little out of hand. The lake is your cousin. The creek is your sister. The pondis her child. And, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, you're married to yoursink."—Michael Parfit, National GeographicPresently, the world is poised to make crucial, perhaps irrevocable decisions about water. Outside of thosenow deliberately seeking to profit from the world's water crisis and those who have continued to pollutewater systems even when confronted with evidence of the damage they have wrought, the harm done towater to date has been largely unintentional and reactive—a combination of benign neglect, ignorance,greed, too many demands on a limited resource, careless pollution and reckless diversion. The human racehas taken water for granted and massively misjudged the capacity of the earth's water systems to recoverfrom our carelessness. Although we now must answer for the great harm we have caused, it is probablyfair to say that no one set out to create a global water shortage or to deliberately destroy the world's watersupply.However, lack of malice is no longer a good enough excuse. We know too much. Forces are alreadyestablished that would see water become a private commodity to be sold and traded on the open market,controlled by transnational corporations and guaranteed to serve investors and private sectors throughglobal trade and investment agreements. If we do nothing now, this is the future of water.THE ETHICS OF WATER SHARINGIn order to begin to develop a comprehensive sustainable water ethic, it is first necessary to acknowledgethat there is a profound human inequity in the access to fresh water sources around the world. Those whoare water-poor live almost exclusively in the developing world; those who are water-rich live in the FirstWorld, where governments and corporations have become wealthy from the colonization and dominationof the very areas now living in water-stress conditions. We have in this situation a tragic dilemma. It couldbe argued that the developed world has a moral obligation to share with water-poor areas, even though thiswould put great stress on already damaged ecosystems.Those who view water as a commodity say that water flowing into the sea or situated in what one forestcompany CEO calls "decadent wilderness" is not of service to people or the economy and is, therefore, awasted commodity. However, environmentalists warn that this is a simplistic analysis. For one thing,water situated in lakes is not available for export or diversion unless we choose to dry up those lakes. Onlywater that runs off from rivers to the sea or is mined from aquifers is actually available fresh water.Although Canada holds almost one-quarter of the world's fresh water, for instance, most of it is in lakes orriver systems flowing north. To move large volumes of this water would massively tamper with thecountry's natural ecosystems.Scientists warn that removing vast amounts of water from watersheds has the potential to destroy wholeecosystems. Lowering water tables can create sinkholes and dry up wells. Huge energy costs would beassociated with large-scale water movement; one version of the GRAND Canal scheme called for a seriesof nuclear power stations along the route to supply the energy needed for the movement of such hugevolumes of water. Existing water diversions and hydroelectric projects are causing local climate change,reduced biodiversity, mercury poisoning, loss of forest, and the destruction of fisheries habitat andwetlands. Imagine what damage a mega-project such as the GRAND Canal might cause.Scientific studies show that large-scale water removal affects not just the immediate systems, butecosystems far beyond. "This work proves beyond all doubt that water is not 'wasted' by running into thesea. It suggests that the cumulative effects of removing water from lakes, rivers and streams for export bytanker could have large-scale impacts on the coastal and marine environment," says Canadian water expertJamie Linton.Richard Bocking says we strike a Faustian bargain when diverting rivers. "For power generation orirrigation today, we exchange much of the life of a river, its valley and biological systems, and the way oflife of people who are in the way. As the cost of the last 50 years of dam building becomes evident, we canno longer plead that we don't know the consequences of treating rivers and lakes as plumbing systems."However, what of the humanitarian argument that in a world of water inequality, water-rich areas have anobligation to share water supplies with others? Perhaps here it would be helpful to distinguish betweenshort-term and long-term approaches. Importing water is not a desirable long-term solution for either theecosystems or the peoples of water-scarce regions of the world. Water is such an essential necessity of life,no one should become dependent on foreign supplies that could be cut for political or environmentalreasons.It is also helpful to distinguish between water trading and water sharing. In a commercially traded waterexchange, those who really need the water would be the least likely to receive it. Water hauled longdistances by tankers would only be available to the wealthy, especially large corporations. Importing waterfor only those who could afford it would reduce the urgency and political pressure to find real, sustainableand equitable solutions to water problems throughout the world.George Wurmitzer, the mayor of Simitz, a small town in the Austrian Alps, essentially captures thedifference between water sharing and water trading when he expresses concerns about large-scale exportsof water from his community: "From my point of view, it is a sacred duty to help someone who issuffering from thirst. However, it is a sin to transfer water just so that people can flush their toilets andwash their cars in dry areas...It makes no sense and is ecological and economic madness."As Linton says, "Perhaps the strongest argument against [commercial] water export is that it would onlyperpetuate the basic problem that has caused the 'water crisis' in the first place—the presumption thatpeoples' growing demands for water can and should always be met by furnishing an increase in the supply.This thinking has led to the draining of lakes, the depletion of aquifers and destruction of aquaticecosystems around the world."If, however, we maintain public control of water, it might be possible to share water supplies on ashort-term basis between countries in times of crisis. In these cases, water sharing would need to beaccompanied by strict timetables and conditions aimed at making the receiving region water-independentas soon as possible. This way, water could be used to encourage water system restoration. This kind ofresolution is not conceivable, however, if the privatization of the world's water continues unchallenged;corporations would not allow a non-profit system of water transfer to be established.THE ETHICS OF WATER PRICINGSimilarly, the call to place a true economic value on water—increasingly made by environmentalists whorightly point out that in many water-rich countries, water is taken for granted and badly wasted—must beput in a political context. The argument is, if an accurate economic value were to be put on water, peoplewould be more likely to conserve it. But in the current climate, there are serious concerns that need to beraised about the issue of water pricing.First, water pricing exacerbates the existing global inequality of access to water. As we know, thecountries that are suffering severe water shortages are home to the poorest people on earth. To charge themfor already scarce supplies is to guarantee growing water disparities.The issue of water pricing will therefore exacerbate the North/South divide. There is a sub-text to much ofthe hand-wringing over the world's water shortage. Almost every article on the subject starts with thereminder of the population explosion and where is it occurring. The sub-text is that "these people" areresponsible for the looming water crisis. But a mere 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percentof its water, and the 12 percent don't live in the Third World.The privatization of this scarce resource will lead to a two-tiered world—those who can afford water andthose who cannot. It will force millions to choose between necessities such as water and health care. InEngland, high water rates forced people to choose whether or not to wash their food, flush their toilets orbathe.Second, under the current trade agreements, priced water becomes a private commodity. Only if water ismaintained as a public service, delivered and protected by governments, can it be exempted from theonerous enforcement measurements of these free trade deals. The trade agreements are very clear. If wateris privatized and put on the open market for sale, it will go to those who can afford it, not to those whoneed it. Once the tap has been turned on, by the terms of trade rules it cannot be turned off.The World Bank says that it will subsidize water for the poor. Anyone familiar with the problems ofwelfare, particularly in the Third World, knows that such charity is punitive at best, and more often nonexistent.Water as a fundamental human right is guaranteed in the UN International Covenant on HumanRights. Water welfare is not what the architects of that great declaration had in mind.Third, as it is now envisaged, water pricing won't have much of an impact. It is generally accepted thatwater consumption in urban centers breaks down at 70 percent industrial, 20 percent institutional and 6-10percent domestic. Yet most of the discussions about water pricing center on individual water use. Largecorporate users notoriously evade the cost of their water altogether.Finally, in an open bidding system for water, who will buy it for the environment and the future? In all ofthis privatization/pricing debate, there is precious little said about the natural world and other species. Thatis because the environment is not factored in to the commercial equation. If we lose public control of ourwater systems, there will be no one left with the ability to claim this life-giving source for the earth.Yet the need to stop wasting water is urgent. The dialogue about water pricing is a crucial one; however, itmust take place within a larger framework. To be both effective and just, any serious consideration ofwater pricing must take into account three factors: the global poverty gap, water as a human right andwater in nature.To deal with the first, the global poverty gap, there are several immediate actions governments could take.These include cancelling the Third World debt, increasing foreign aid budgets to their previous standards(.7 percent of GDP), and implementing a "Tobin tax" ( a small, worldwide tariff) on financial speculationthat would pay for water infrastructure and universal water services.To deal with the issue of water as a human right, countries must adopt constitutions such as that of SouthAfrica, which guarantees water first for people, second for nature and third for the economy. Every SouthAfrican is guaranteed enough free water for basic needs; only then is there consideration of pricing.To ensure that ecosystem survival is key to any new system that might include pricing, revenues raisedmust be used to protect the environment, restore watersheds, enforce clean water standards and repairfaulty infrastructure which is currently the cause of great water wastage.Further, the focus must be on the greatest abusers of water—large industry and corporate farming.Governments must bring the rule of law to those corporations that pollute and waste precious water. Theymust also implement a more just taxation system that captures some of the untold billions in taxation thatlarge corporations now evade. These revenues would go a long way toward cleaning up the earth's dyingwater systems. Clearly, the focus must be on those who use water most and who then remove the benefitsof using this common good, this public trust, from the community in the form of profits, particularly in anage of mergers and transnationals. Business has no right to deprive anyone of their inalienable humanrights; if that is the price of profit, the price is too high.None of these conditions however, is possible if water is not controlled in the public interest. If water isallowed to be commercialized and controlled by corporations, the profit principle will dominate. In thiscase, water-pricing would become a tool of the market, rather than be a tool that could be used as anincentive to conservation and to ensure that water remains a fundamental human right for every person onearth.PROTECTING WATER: TEN PRINCIPLESIn order to take the kind of action needed by all levels of government and communities around the world,it is urgent that we come to agreement on a set of guiding principles and values. The following is offeredas an opening dialogue:1) Water belongs to the earth and all species.Water, like air, is necessary for all life. Without water, humans and other beings would die and the earth'ssystems would shut down. Modern society has lost its reverence for water's sacred place in the cycle of lifeas well as its centrality to the realm of the spirit. This loss of reverence for water has allowed humans toabuse it. Only by redefining our relationship to water and recognizing its essential and sacred place innature can we begin to right the wrongs we have done.Because water belongs to the earth and all species, decision-makers must represent the rights and needs ofother species in their policy choices and actions. Future generations also constitute "stakeholder" statusrequiring representation in decision-making about water. Nature, not man, is at the center of the universe.For all our brilliance and accomplishment, we are a species of animal who needs water for the samereasons as other species. Unlike other species, however, only humans have the power to destroyecosystems upon which all depend and so humans have an urgent need to redefine our relationship to thenatural world. No decisions about water use should ever be made without a full consideration of impactsto the ecosystem.2) Water should be left where it is wherever possible.Nature put water where it belongs. Tampering with nature by removing vast amounts of water fromwatersheds has the potential to destroy ecosystems. Large-scale water removal and diversion affects notjust the immediate systems, but ecosystems far beyond. Water is not "wasted" by running into the sea. Thecumulative effects of removing water from lakes, rivers and streams has disastrous large-scale impacts onthe coastal and marine environment as well as on the indigenous peoples of the region, and other peoplewhose livelihoods depend upon these areas.While there may be an obligation to share water in times of crisis, just as with food, it is not a desirablelong-term solution for either the ecosystems or the peoples of any region of the world to becomedependent on foreign supplies for this life-giving source. By importing for this basic need, a relationship ofdependency would be established that is good for neither side. By accepting this principle, we learn thenature of water's limits and to live within them, and we start to look at our own regions, communities andhomes for ways to meet our needs while respecting water's place in nature.3) Water must be conserved for all time.Each generation must ensure that the abundance and quality of water is not diminished as a result of itsactivities. The only way to solve the problem of global water scarcity is to radically change our habits,particularly when it comes to water conservation. People living in the wealthy countries of the world mustchange their patterns of water consumption, especially those in water-rich bioregions. If they don't changethese habits, any reluctance to share their water—even for sound environmental and ethical reasons—willrightly be called into question.The key to maintaining sustainable groundwater supplies is to ensure that net extractions do not exceedrecharge. Some water destined for cities and agribusiness will have to be restored to nature. Large tracts ofaquatic systems must be set aside for preservation; governments must agree on a global target. Plannedmajor dams must be put on hold and some current river diversions must be re-oriented to reflect a morenatural seasonal flow or else be de-commissioned altogether.Infrastructure improvement must become a priority of governments everywhere to stem the huge loss ofwater through aging and broken systems. Government subsidies of wasteful corporate practices must end.By refusing to subsidize abusive water use, governments will send out the message that water is notabundant and cannot be wasted.4) Polluted water must be reclaimed.The human race has collectively polluted the world's water supply and must collectively takeresponsibility for reclaiming it. Water scarcity and pollution are caused by economic values that encourageoverconsumption and grossly inefficient use of water. These values are wrong. A resolution to reclaimpolluted water is an act of self-preservation. Our survival, and the survival of all species, depends onrestoring naturally functioning ecosystems.Governments at all levels and communities in every country must reclaim polluted water systems and halt,to the extent possible, the destruction of wetlands and water systems habitat. Rigorous law andenforcement must address the issue of water pollution from agriculture, municipal discharge and industrialcontaminants, the leading causes of water degradation. Government must re-establish control overtransnational mining and forestry companies whose unchecked practices continue to cause untold damageto water systems.The water crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other major environmental issues such as clearcuttingof forests and human-induced climate change. The destruction of waterways due to clearcutting severelyharms fish habitat. Climate change will cause extreme conditions. Floods will be higher, storms will bemore severe, droughts will be more persistent. The demand on existing freshwater supplies will bemagnified. To reclaim damaged water will require an international commitment to dramatically reducehuman impacts on climate.5) Water is best protected in natural watersheds.The future of a water-secure world is based on the need to live within naturally formed "bioregions," orwatersheds. Bioregionalism is the practice of living within the constraints of a natural ecosystem. Thesurface and groundwater conditions peculiar to a watershed constitute a set of essential parameters thatgovern virtually all life in a region; other characteristics, like flora and fauna, are related to the area'shydrological conditions. Therefore, if living within the ecological constraints of a region is key todeveloping a sustainable society, watersheds are an excellent starting point for establishing bioregionalpractices.An advantage of thinking in watershed terms is that water flow does not respect nation-state borders.Watershed management offers a more interdisciplinary approach to protecting water. Watershedmanagement is a way to break the gridlock among international, national, local and tribal governments thathas plagued water policy around the world for so long. Watersheds, not political or bureaucraticboundaries, will lead to more collaborative protection and decision-making.6) Water is a public trust to be guarded at all levels of government.Because water, like air, belongs to the earth and all species, no one has the right to appropriate it or profitfrom it at someone else's expense. Water, then, is a public trust that must be protected at all levels ofgovernment and communities everywhere.Therefore, water should not be privatized, commodified, traded or exported in bulk for commercialpurpose. Governments all over the world must take immediate action to declare that the waters in theirterritories are a public good and enact strong regulatory structures to protect them. Water shouldimmediately be exempted from all existing and future international and bilateral trade and investmentagreements. Governments must ban the commercial trade in large-scale water projects.While it is true that governments have failed badly in protecting their water heritage, it is only throughdemocratically controlled institutions that this situation can be rectified. If water becomes clearlyestablished as a commodity to be controlled by the private sector, decisions about water will be madesolely on a for-profit basis.Each level of government must protect its water trust: municipalities should stop raiding the water systemsof rural communities. Watershed cooperation will protect larger river and lake systems. National andinternational legislation will bring the rule of law to transnational corporations and end abusive corporatepractices. Governments will tax the private sector adequately to pay for infrastructure repair. All levels ofgovernments will work together to set targets for global aquatic wilderness preserves.7) An adequate supply of clean water is a basic human right.Every person in the world has a right to clean water and healthy sanitation systems no matter where theylive. This right is best ensured by keeping water and sewage services in the public sector, regulating theprotection of water supplies and promoting the efficient use of water. Adequate supplies of clean water forpeople in water-scarce regions can only be ensured by promoting conservation and protection of localwater resources.First Nations Peoples have special inherent rights to their traditional territories, including water. Theserights stem from their use and possession of the land and water in their territories and their ancient socialand legal systems. The inalienable right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples must be recognizedand codified by all governments; water sovereignty is elemental in the protection of these rights.Governments everywhere must implement a "local sources first" policy to protect the basic rights of theircitizens to fresh water. Legislation that requires all countries, communities and bioregions to protect localsources of water and seek alternative local sources before looking to other areas will go a long way to haltthe environmentally destructive practice of moving water from one watershed basin to another. "Localsources first" must be accompanied by a principle of "local people and farmers first." Local citizens andcommunities have first rights to local water. Agribusiness and industry, particularly large transnationalcorporations, must fit into a "local-first" policy or be shut down.This does not mean that water should be "free" or that everyone can help themselves. However, a policy ofwater pricing that respects this principle would help conserve water and preserve the rights of all to haveaccess to it. Water pricing and "green taxes" (which raise government revenues while discouragingpollution and resource consumption) should place a heavier burden on agribusiness and industry than oncitizens; funds collected from these sources should be used to provide basic water for all.8) The best advocates for water are local communities and citizens.Local stewardship, not private business, expensive technology or even government, is the best protector ofwater security. Only local citizens can understand the overall cumulative effect of privatization, pollutionand water removal and diversion on the local community. Only local citizens know the effect of job loss orloss of local farms when water sources are taken over by big business or diverted to faraway uses. It mustbe understood that local citizens and communities are the front-line "keepers" of the rivers, lakes andunderground water systems upon which their lives and livelihoods rest.In order to be affordable, sustainable and equitable, the solutions to water stress and water scarcity must belocally inspired and community-based. Reclamation projects that work are often inspired by environmentalorganizations and involve all levels of government and sometimes private donations. But if they are notguided by the common sense and lived experience of the local community, they will not be sustained.In water-scarce regions, traditional local indigenous technologies, such as local water sharing and raincatchment systems that had been abandoned for new technology, are being revisited with some urgency. Insome areas, local people have assumed complete responsibility for water distribution facilities andestablished funds to which water users must contribute. The funds are used to provide water to all in thecommunity.9) The public must participate as an equal partner with government to protect water.A fundamental principle for a water-secure future is that the public must be consulted and engaged as anequal partner with governments in establishing water policy. For too long, governments and internationaleconomic institutions such as the World Bank, the OECD and trade bureaucrats have been driven bycorporate interests. Even in the rare instances that they are given a seat at the table, non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and environmental groups are typically ignored. Corporations who heavily fundpolitical campaigns are often given sweetheart contracts for water resources. Sometimes, corporate lobbygroups actually draft the wording of agreements and treaties that governments then adopt. This practicehas created a crisis of legitimacy for governments everywhere.Processes must be created whereby citizens, workers and environmental representatives are treated asequal partners in the determination of water policy and recognized as the true inheritors and guardians ofthe above principles.10) Economic globalization policies are not water-sustainable.Economic globalization's values of unlimited growth and increased global trade are totally incompatiblewith the search for solutions to water scarcity. Designed to reward the strongest and most ruthless,economic globalization locks out the forces of local democracy so desperately needed for a water-securefuture. If we accept the principle that to protect water we must attempt to live within our watersheds, thepractice of viewing the world as one seamless consumer market must be abandoned.Economic globalization undermines local communities by allowing for easy mobility of capital and thetheft of local resources. Liberalized trade and investment enables some countries to live beyond theirecological and water resource means; others abuse their limited water sources to grow crops for export. Inwealthy countries, cities and industries are mushrooming on deserts. A water-sustainable society woulddenounce these practices.Global sustainability can only be reached if we seek greater regional self-sufficiency, not less. Buildingour economies on local watershed systems is the only way to integrate sound environmental policies withpeoples' productive capacities and to protect our water at the same time.CONCLUSIONNot long ago, the world celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declarationof Human Rights. This Declaration marked a turning point in the long international quest to assert thesupremacy of human and citizen rights over political or economic tyranny of any kind. Together with theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, the Declaration stands as a 20th century Magna Carta. Besides granting full humanrights to every person on earth regardless of race, religion, sex, and many other criteria, the Declarationincludes the rights of citizenship, those services and social protections that every citizen has a right todemand of his or her government.These rights include social security, health, and the well-being of the family, including the right to work,decent housing and medical care. The covenants bind governments to accept a moral and legal obligationto protect and promote the human and democratic rights outlined in the Declaration and contain themeasures of implementation required to do so. The individual rights and responsibilities of citizens asestablished by the Declaration, together with the collective rights and responsibilities of nation-states asestablished in the covenants, represent the foundation stones of democracy in the modern world.Yet a half-century later, the lack of access to clean water means that more than one billion people arebeing denied a right guaranteed them in the United Nations Declaration. Over those fifty years, the rightsof private capital have grown exponentially, while the rights of the world's poor have fallen off thepolitical map. It is no coincidence that the deterioration and depletion of the world's water systems hastaken place concurrent with the rise in the power of transnational corporations and a global financialsystem in which communities, indigenous peoples and farmers have been disenfranchised.The role of the state has been profoundly altered in recent decades. As writer and activist Tony Clarkeexplains, "Stateless corporations are effectively transforming nation-states to suit their interests in globaltransnational investment and competitiveness." It appears that governments and government institutions,even the United Nations, have become, at worst, captive to these corporate forces and, at best, unable tostand up to them. Citizens have been largely left to fend for themselves.In recent years, an international movement of workers, social advocates, human rights groups andenvironmental organizations has come together to put human and ecological issues back on the politicalagenda. They are forming powerful alliances with one another to affect government policy in their owncountries and around the world and to dismantle or reform global institutions working against them. Publiceducators are meeting with one another to stem the assault on public education. Environmentalists areworking together to slow the progress of international trade agreements. International anti-poverty activistsmeet regularly to forge a new international "Social Contract" for adoption by governments.Similar groups are coming together to forge links and take direct action to protect water. The Blue PlanetProject is an international initiative begun by The Council of Canadians to protect the world's fresh waterfrom the growing threats of trade and privatization. During the March 2000 World Water Forum in theHague, activists from Canada and more than a dozen other countries organized to oppose the Forum'sprivatization agenda and kick-start an international network to protect water as a common resource and abasic human right. A grassroots civil society movement, The Blue Planet Project, intends to become anactive force in every country and community in the world.Information on this project can be found at http://www.canadians.org/blueplanetThe time has come to take a clear and principled stand to stop the systematic devastation of the world'swater systems. In the long term, nation-states have to be re-tooled in order to establish the regulations andprotections necessary to save their water systems. International law must be developed that recognizes andenforces the social obligations of global capital in the interests of the global "water commons." Mostimportant, the citizens of planet earth must move, and quickly, if we are to save it.SOURCESAmbramovitz, Janet N., Sustaining Freshwater Ecosystems, Worldwatch Institute Annual Report, State ofthe World, 1996.Appleton, Barry, Navigating NAFTA, A Concise User's Guide to the North American Free TradeAgreement, Carswell Publishing, Toronto and Rochester, 1994.Bocking, Richard, Water Export and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Prepared for the BritishColumbia Special Legislative Committee on the MAI, Vancouver, October 1998.Brown, Lester R., and Halweil, Brian, China's Water Shortage Could Shake World Food Security, inWorldwatch, July/August 1998.Canadian Environmental Law Association, NAFTA and Water Exports, Toronto, October 1993.Canadian Union of Public Employees, Water Privatization, Coming to a Community Near You? Ottawa,September 1998.Clarke, Tony, Silent Coup, Confronting the Big Business Takeover of Canada, Canadian Center for PolicyAlternatives and James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Ottawa, 1997.Deneen, Sally, Paradise Lost, America's Disappearing Wetlands, E Magazine, November/December1998.Gleick, Peter H., The World's Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, 1998/1999, PacificInstitute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland California, Island Press,Washington D.C., Covelo, California, 1998.Global Initiators Committee for the Water Contract, The Water Manifesto, The Right to Life, Lisbon, 1998.Global Water Corporation Web site: www.globalwatercorporation.com/gloalteam.ast, Global WaterGazette.Goudrian, Jan-Willem and Hall, David, Private Water Firms Rife with Corruption, in Canadian Center forPolicy Alternatives, Monitor, April, 1997.Graham, Wade, A Hundred Rivers Run Through It, Harper's Magazine, June 1998."John Hopkins School of Public Health, Population Reports, Volume XXVI, Number 1, September,1998."Kaplan, Robert, Desert Politics, in Atlantic Monthly, July 1998.Karliner, Joshua, The Corporate Planet, Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization, Sierra ClubBooks, San Francisco, 1997.Linton, Jamie, Beneath the Surface: The State of Water in Canada, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa,1997.Menotti, Victor, The Environmental Impacts of Economic Globalization, Prepared for the InternationalForum on Globalization, August 1998.National Geographic, Water, The Power, Promise and Turmoil of North America's Fresh Water, SpecialEdition, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, 1993.Nature Conservancy, Rivers of Life, Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity,Arlington, Virginia, 1998.Nature Conservancy, Troubled Waters: Protecting our Aquatic Heritage, Arlington, Virginia, 1996.New York Times Special Supplement, Water, Pushing the Limits of an Irreplaceable Resource, December8, 1998.Platt, Anne, Water-Borne Killers, in Worldwatch, March/April, 1996.Polaris Institute, The Final Frontier: A Working Paper on the Big 10 Global Water Corporations and thePrivatization and Corporatization of the World's Last Public Resource, prepared by Gil Yaron, under thedirection of Tony Clarke, Ottawa, 2000Postel, Sandra, Forging a Sustainable Water Strategy, Worldwatch Institute Annual Report, State of theWorld, 1996.Postel, Sandra, Last Oasis, Facing Water Scarcity, The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series, W.W.Norton & Company, New York, 1992.Public Citizen, Comments of Public Citizen, Inc., Regarding U.S. Preparations for the World TradeOrganization's Ministerial Meeting, Fourth Quarter, 1999, Washington DC, October 1998.Public Services International Research Unit, Privatization News, January 1999.Public Services International Briefing, Financing Water—Distortions and Prejudice, for the World WaterForum, The Hague, March 2000.Report on Business, monthly magazine of The Globe and Mail, May 19, 1991.Robbins, Elaine, Our Water, Ourselves, E Magazine, September/October 1998.Shrybman, Steven, An Environment Guide to the World Trade Organization, Common Front on the WorldTrade Organization, Ottawa, 1997.Shrybman, Steven, A Legal Opinion Concerning Water Export Controls and Canadian Obligations underNAFTA and the WTO, for The Council of Canadians, Ottawa, November 1999.Shrybman, Steven, Water and the GATS: An Assessment of the Impact of Services Disciplines on PublicPolicy and Law Concerning Water, for The Council of Canadians, Ottawa, March 2001.Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice and Campaign for Responsible Technology,Sacred Waters: Life-blood of Mother Earth, Four Case Studies of High-Tech Water Resource Exploitationand Corporate Welfare in the Southwest, 1997.Stikker, Allerd, Water Today and Tomorrow, Prospects for Overcoming Scarcity, Futures, Vol. 30, No. 1,Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain, 1998.Topfer, Klaus, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Program, Presentation to the InternationalConference on Water and Sustainable Development, Paris, March 1998.United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Strategic Approaches to FreshwaterManagement, Report of the Secretary-General, January 1998.Wall Street Journal, "Water Business Is Hot as Cities Decide to Top Private Sector," by KathrynKranhold, November 9, 1998.World Resources, 1998-99, A Joint Publication by the World Resources Institute, the United NationsEnvironmental Program, The United Nations Development Program, and The World Bank, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford and New York, 1998.Yaron, Gil, Protecting British Columbian Waters: The Threat of Bulk Water Exports under NAFTA,University of British Columbia, April, 1996.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com